Nobody Fucks With The DeJesus

(props to Jacos for the headline)

The Cubs signed OF David DeJesus to a 2-year/$10 million deal with a 3rd year club option. It's actually $4.25M for the next two years with a $1.5M buyout or $6.5M in 2014. A Jim Bowden tweet indicates that the Cubs told him DeJesus will be the everyday right fielder.

Dejesus will be 32 next season and played for the A's last year and had the worst season of his career, a 93 OPS+ on the back of a .274 BABIP. His career slash line is 284/356/447 with a 106 OPS+. Great for a center fielder, kind of okay for a right fielder, but he's getting older and probably gonna be as good or worse than his career numbers going forward. That means baserunning and defense will have to make up some of the difference and if you believe in some of the defensive numbers out there, he seems to been quite an asset. Most of that time was in center, so a move to right field should be no problem. (Correction, played right for A's last year for the most part and put up great UZR numbers if you care for that).  Although he doesn't steal a bunch of bases, his baserunning numbers seem to border on neutral to a slight positive. He's cheap enough and lefty enough that this isn't too big a deal to me and he does nearly see 4 pitchers per plate appearance which fits into the mold of grinding out at-bats. That all being said, it's a big old "meh" move. As Kevin Goldstein tweeted, it's a warm body that fills a need, and for a guy that at best should be worth about 2 wins over replacement, the cost makes it about right. But I have a hard time seeing the big difference between him, Byrd or Fukudome.

DeJesus

Year Age Tm G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+ GDP HBP SH SF IBB
2003 23 KCR 12 10 7 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 .286 .444 .571 1.016 159 0 1 1 0 0
2004 24 KCR 96 413 363 58 104 15 3 7 39 8 11 33 53 .287 .360 .402 .763 97 6 9 8 0 0
2005 25 KCR 122 523 461 69 135 31 6 9 56 5 5 42 76 .293 .359 .445 .804 114 6 9 5 6 1
2006 26 KCR 119 552 491 83 145 36 7 8 56 6 3 43 70 .295 .364 .446 .810 108 10 12 2 4 4
2007 27 KCR 157 703 605 101 157 29 9 7 58 10 4 64 83 .260 .351 .372 .722 91 10 23 7 4 7
2008 28 KCR 135 577 518 70 159 25 7 12 73 11 8 46 71 .307 .366 .452 .818 118 10 5 4 4 3
2009 29 KCR 144 627 558 74 157 28 9 13 71 4 9 51 87 .281 .347 .434 .781 107 10 8 5 5 0
2010 30 KCR 91 394 352 46 112 23 3 5 37 3 3 34 47 .318 .384 .443 .827 127 10 4 3 1 2
2011 31 OAK 131 506 442 60 106 20 5 10 46 4 3 45 86 .240 .323 .376 .698 93 14 11 4 4 1
9 Seasons 1007 4305 3797 561 1077 207 50 71 436 51 46 359 575 .284 .356 .421 .776 106 76 82 39 28 18
162 Game Avg. 162 693 611 90 173 33 8 11 70 8 7 58 93 .284 .356 .421 .776 106 12 13 6 5 3
Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 11/30/2011.

Fukudome

Year Age Tm G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+ GDP HBP SH SF IBB
2008 31 CHC 150 590 501 79 129 25 3 10 58 12 4 81 104 .257 .359 .379 .738 89 7 1 2 5 9
2009 32 CHC 146 603 499 79 129 38 5 11 54 6 10 93 112 .259 .375 .421 .796 104 15 3 3 5 3
2010 33 CHC 130 429 358 45 94 20 2 13 44 7 8 64 67 .263 .371 .439 .809 114 5 0 3 4 1
2011 34 TOT 146 603 530 59 139 27 3 8 35 4 6 61 110 .262 .342 .370 .712 97 8 4 6 2 4
2011 34 CHC 87 345 293 33 80 15 2 3 13 2 2 46 57 .273 .374 .369 .742 105 2 1 5 0 1
2011 34 CLE 59 258 237 26 59 12 1 5 22 2 4 15 53 .249 .300 .371 .671 87 6 3 1 2 3
4 Seasons 572 2225 1888 262 491 110 13 42 191 29 28 299 393 .260 .361 .399 .760 100 35 8 14 16 17
162 Game Avg. 162 630 535 74 139 31 4 12 54 8 8 85 111 .260 .361 .399 .760 100 10 2 4 5 5
Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 11/30/2011.

Byrd

Year Age Tm G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+ TB GDP HBP SH SF IBB
2002 24 PHI 10 36 35 2 8 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 8 .229 .250 .371 .621 66 13 0 0 0 0 0
2003 25 PHI 135 553 495 86 150 28 4 7 45 11 1 44 94 .303 .366 .418 .784 111 207 8 7 4 3 3
2004 26 PHI 106 378 346 48 79 13 2 5 33 2 2 22 68 .228 .287 .321 .608 54 111 10 7 2 1 1
2005 27 PHI 5 15 13 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 .308 .400 .308 .708 86 4 0 1 0 0 0
2005 27 WSN 74 244 216 20 57 15 2 2 26 5 1 18 47 .264 .318 .380 .698 87 82 5 1 5 4 1
2006 28 WSN 78 228 197 28 44 8 1 5 18 3 3 22 47 .223 .317 .350 .667 76 69 6 6 1 2 1
2007 29 TEX 109 454 414 60 127 17 8 10 70 5 3 29 88 .307 .355 .459 .814 112 190 9 5 0 6 3
2008 30 TEX 122 462 403 70 120 28 4 10 53 7 2 46 62 .298 .380 .462 .842 121 186 10 9 2 2 3
2009 31 TEX 146 599 547 66 155 43 2 20 89 8 4 32 98 .283 .329 .479 .808 106 262 11 10 0 10 2
2010 32 CHC 152 630 580 84 170 39 2 12 66 5 1 31 98 .293 .346 .429 .775 105 249 12 17 0 2 1
2011 33 CHC 119 482 446 51 123 22 2 9 35 3 2 25 78 .276 .324 .395 .719 96 176 13 8 1 2 2
10 Seasons 1056 4081 3692 515 1037 215 27 81 436 49 21 271 691 .281 .339 .420 .759 100 1549 84 71 15 32 17
162 Game Avg. 162 626 566 79 159 33 4 12 67 8 3 42 106 .281 .339 .420 .759 100 238 13 11 2 5 3
PHI (4 yrs) 256 982 889 136 241 43 6 13 79 13 5 68 173 .271 .332 .377 .709 86 335 18 15 6 4 4
TEX (3 yrs) 377 1515 1364 196 402 88 14 40 212 20 9 107 248 .295 .352 .468 .820 112 638 30 24 2 18 8
CHC (2 yrs) 271 1112 1026 135 293 61 4 21 101 8 3 56 176 .286 .337 .414 .751 101 425 25 25 1 4 3
WSN (2 yrs) 152 472 413 48 101 23 3 7 44 8 4 40 94 .245 .318 .366 .683 82 151 11 7 6 6 2
Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 11/30/2011.

It's not that I'm advocating bringing back Fukudome, for one he's three years older, but it's hard to see where this improves the team much from the last few years and when you're at the bottom looking up, that should be the goal.

But since this is just move #1 of  what I presume to be quite a few more before the offseason ends, we'll have to reserve some of the judgement on this to a later date. For one, they could be planning to trade Byrd and replacing him with DeJesus and I think that's a bit of an upgrade. Soriano might be on his way out as well and you do need someone to play these outfield positions. Plus you have to save money somewhere if they do plan to make a run at Fielder or Pujols.

Tags: 
Cubs News
David DeJesus
Submitted by Rob G. on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 12:34pm
Return to Homepage

Comments

Submitted by Rob G.
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 12:46pm

Mrs. DeJesus is a Cubs fan at least

https://twitter.com/KimDeJesus12/status/14193...

I was born a cubs fan, and now im married to one!!!!!! :) COULDNT BE MORE EXCITED!!!!!!!!!!!!! GOOOOO CUBBIES!!!!!!!!!!

Submitted by Tito
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 2:29pm

I recommend looking at her Twitter photos.

Submitted by Rory
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 2:50pm

She just became the #1 WAG and I just became a DeJesus fan!

Submitted by Doug Dascenzo
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 4:19pm

I went to high school with her. Very, very nice to look at.

Submitted by Rob G.
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 4:21pm

tell us something we don't know :)

Submitted by Dusty Baylor
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 12:48pm

Agreed Rob. this is a move that hopefully will fill a position cheaply, while saving money for Prince Fielder....or something?
His numbers don't stand out...and as a RF, a career .776 OPS is pretty mediocre..slightly abouve Nick Markakis' 2011 season.

Wait and see I suppose...

Submitted by Old and Blue
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 12:49pm

So is this part of a "best offense is a good defense" strategy? Even though this guy's been around awhile, I don't know much about him.

Submitted by big_lowitzki
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 12:50pm

Damnit! I want All Stars at every position!

Submitted by Dusty Baylor
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 12:54pm

Uh...I would like at least a few positions with all stars?
More specifically, what does this move mean for Marlon Byrd, or Brett Jackson?

I'm just not impressed with signing 32 year old OF's with average speed, little power, and decent OBP.

Submitted by Rob G.
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 12:56pm

some of his OBP comes from getting hit by pitches a lot too and he's played 91 and 131 games over the last 2 years and played over 150 just once in his career.

Submitted by Rob G.
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 12:54pm

speaking of just like Fukudome...

his L/R splits are .815 OPS vs. righties, .690 vs. lefties

Hoyer says they don't intend to platoon him.

Submitted by John Beasley
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 1:27pm

They ought to platoon him with Soriano!

Submitted by Rob G.
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 1:32pm

John Beasley for assistant to the assistant GM.

Submitted by John Beasley
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 2:09pm

EverythingIKnowILearnedAt.thecubreporter.com

Submitted by Seamhead
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 1:37pm

Hoyer, per Sullivan:

Hoyer said DeJesus was not brought in to platoon in right, though they probably will add a right-handed hitting outfielder who can play the corners.

"I'm sure we'll try to provide that flexibility for Dale," he said. "But we're not signing (DeJesus) as a platoon player."

The signing may not affect LaHair, who mostly played right last September after manager Mike Quade benched Colvin. The Cubs appear to be looking at LaHair primarily as a first baseman, after Quade gave LaHair only two starts at first as his team played out the string.

"It's a fair assessment," Hoyer said, adding that he likes laHair's flexibility.

Submitted by Ryno
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 1:08pm

I've always had a mancrush on DeJesus. I'm already liking the Theo regime.

Submitted by Ryno
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 1:11pm

Naturally, I would have preferred he were a Cub back when he was decent...

Submitted by Dusty Baylor
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 1:13pm

+1

Submitted by jacos
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 1:29pm

If we are going the lebowski route, Sveum does look like Karl Hungus the Nihlist
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001780/

Submitted by Rob G.
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 1:36pm

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/blog_articl...

decent sabermetric take on the deal...

Submitted by big_lowitzki
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 1:45pm

This dude at FanGraphs likes it too:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/davi...

Submitted by Stevens
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 2:38pm

"Wrigley Field has a 120 index for left-handed home run power. "

First I've ever heard of Wrigley so kind to lefty power. I'd read something (admittedly many years ago) that said Wrigley loved righty power and hurt lefty power. Very interesting revelation.

Submitted by Rob G.
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 2:51pm

a lot of that may depend on the the power hitters in the Cubs lineup and if it's a 3-year or 1-year index.

It's a symmetrical stadium pretty much (2 ft shorter at the right field pole), so the only deciding factor would be the wind.

Submitted by Stevens
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 3:17pm

Depending on the index, they usually use road teams' stats or some other normalization so the home team's make-up doesn't skew the information.

"the only deciding factor would be the wind"

which intuitively seems to favor lefties, though we know it can swirl.

Submitted by JoePepitone
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 10:10pm

"It's a symmetrical stadium pretty much (2 ft shorter at the right field pole), so the only deciding factor would be the wind."

It appears more symetrical than it is. The 400' dimension is to the right of straightaway center. True center field is at 390'. True left-centerfield is about 365' and true right-centerfield is 385' -- that is, Wrigley kind of bulges out to right field and the left field bleachers kind of "cheat" in closer to the plate than the right field bleachers do. That said, I don't have any reason to dispute the 120 index number for left-handed power hitters.

Submitted by The Real Neal
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 9:42am

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/hom...

What’s wrong with the current HRPF calculation?
Perhaps this can be answered with a single example: in 2002, the HRPF for Chase Field (then Bank One Ballpark) was 48, and then the very next year it rose to 116. Need I say more?

I can't find any historical data but I am pretty sure that Wrigley has usually been a little tough on LH hitters for homers, despite the index from 2011. It's big down the line, and as noted it's big to right-center.

Submitted by Rob G.
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 10:13am

when did they do the bleacher reconstruction? believe that changed some of the dynamics of the wind effect at Wrigley and seemed to change how Wrigley played a bit in terms of what park factors came up.

Wrigley sure didn't help Milton Bradley :)

(for those that don't recall, bunch of folks seemed convinced that Wrigley was just as friendly to lefties as the Ballpark to Arlington based on what some park factors said about lefties)

Submitted by VirginiaPhil
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 5:31pm

"decent sabermetric take on the deal..."

Not sure how he gets from the Cubs' eating $43 of the $54 million owed to Soriano to their "effectively" eating $10 million. There's some sleight-of-hand there; or else he confuses himself by never actually using the 43 number, just asking us to add 27 and 16. (Then 27 becomes 26 and he subtracts 16 to get 10. I think he subtracted 16 twice.)

If the Cubs do eat $43 million, that's 80% of Soriano's remaining salary, whereas I calculated that they chipped in 84% of Fukudome's paycheck while he played for Cleveland. Then of course there were the indirect payments to Bradley in 2011.

That's a lot of high-fiber greenery for the Rickettses to swallow, but to his credit, T. Ricketts seems to be permitting his new team to write off as much of the Hendry debt as necessary.

Submitted by Rob G.
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 1:38pm

“He’s certainly not out of the picture,” Hoyer said. “Tyler struggled in 2011. He has to come to camp and bounce back from last year. We’re trying to round out our lineup and do everything we can to put the best team we can on the field. I think Tyler, given the year he had, he needs to bounce back and that starts in Spring Training.”

http://muskat.mlblogs.com/2011/11/30/1130-cub...

Submitted by Charlie
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 3:20pm

Colvin spends 2012 in Iowa unless A.) Byrd or Dejesus suffers a significant injury or B.) Campana completely implodes as an extra outfielder. And LaHair might spend the season in Iowa, too, if the Cubs sign Fielder or Pujols or Pena accepts arbitration.

Maybe the Cubs end up trading one of Byrd or Colvin (that'd be a real sell low move) before the season begins, perhaps as part of a move to bring in a serviceable starting pitcher or third baseman.

I'm glad the third-year option is a club option. I'd like to only be stuck such a thoroughly mediocre veteran for a couple of years. Hopefully by then somebody is ready to take his place or the Cubs are ready to invest in someone who can make more of an impact.

Submitted by garsky
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 3:26pm

If you spend some time on Red Sox message boards there seems to be some weird Colvin love going on there. Several seem to think he'd be perfect Theo compensation. To which I say, done deal

Submitted by Charlie
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 4:03pm

I'd rather trade them Rhee or someone of the like, if that's possible (though I do like Rhee).

Submitted by Arizona Phil
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 6:15pm

Wed, 11/30/2011 - 3:20pm — Charlie

Colvin spends 2012 in Iowa unless A.) Byrd or Dejesus suffers a significant injury or B.) Campana completely implodes as an extra outfielder. And LaHair might spend the season in Iowa, too, if the Cubs sign Fielder or Pujols or Pena accepts arbitration

=========================

CHARLIE: Bryan LaHair is out of minor league options, so it is unlikely that he would spend the 2012 season at Iowa.

Even if the Cubs place him on Outright Waivers and he is not claimed (which is unlikely), he can refuse an Outright Assignment because he has been outrighted previously in his career.

I think the most-likely outcome will be that LaHair make the Cubs Opening Day 25-man roster and will platoon with Alfonso Soriano in LF, and if that happens, Soriano will hopefully get pissed-off enough to waive his "no trade" rights in case the Cubs can find a taker for him.

Because even if some club (like Baltimore) will take Soriano (with the Cubs eating 85% of his remaining salary), there still is the matter of Soriano's NTC. Same goes for Carlos Zambrano.

Submitted by Charlie
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 6:26pm

That sounds fabulous.

Note the absence of sarcasm formatting.

Thanks for the reminder, Phil! I forgot about that.

Submitted by Dr. aaron b
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 3:29pm

I'd like to see Colvin use his last option year playing everyday in Iowa.

Lets get him 500 every day at bats of development so that we know what we got going forward.

Submitted by VirginiaPhil
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 5:54pm

I'm sure you'll get your wish. But I'm very interested, with Joshua gone, who the hitting coach will be at Iowa. Colvin seems to have come up through the system without ever hearing good advice on how to approach an at-bat: what the different counts mean, etc. Or else the good advice he received didn't penetrate his thick skull, with the result that he was not only the worst hitter in the league last season, he was the worst hitter in the city (worse than Adam Dunn).

I imagine that Epstein/Hoyer/McLeod will have something to say about who gets to coach the minor leaguers, so that's one small reason for optimism regarding Colvin.

Submitted by Arizona Phil
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 6:41pm

Wed, 11/30/2011 - 3:29pm — Dr. aaron b

I'd like to see Colvin use his last option year playing everyday in Iowa.

Lets get him 500 every day at bats of development so that we know what we got going forward.

==================================

DR AARON B: Actually Tyler Colvin has two minor league options left.

Submitted by Rob G.
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 1:51pm

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_s...

so they picked what appear to be the most bat-shit crazy ex-wives?

never change reality television...

Submitted by Rob G.
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 2:26pm

Jim Bowden tweet that A's need major league outfielders and will use SP to deal for them.

Soriano for Gio...done and done.

Submitted by Charlie
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 3:22pm

Byrd, Soriano, Colvin, and LaHair should all be available for any kind of serviceable starting pitching. If the Cubs then feel like turning around and trading Garza for a young slugger and a young pitcher or two (as mentioned in previous threads), that'd be fine then.

Submitted by Rob G.
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 2:36pm

Dbacks, Indians, O's, Royals, A's, Pirates, Padres, Rays, Reds, Rockies, Marlins, Brewers, Cardinals
(among the teams with the smallest market and smallest revenue)

are the 13 teams eligible for the draft lottery, odds to win are weighed by winning percentage so in order of best chance to worst chance.

O's, Royals, Padres, Pirates, Marlins, Rockies, A's, Reds, Indians, Cardinals, Rays, DBacks, Brewers

6 get a pick between first and second round (not sure if that's after or before compensation picks yet)
6 more get a pick between second and third round, leaving just one of those teams without a pick.

Submitted by Jumbo
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 6:04pm

It's horse shit that the Cardinals could get a supplemental pick after winning the fucking series. I hate this new CBA

Submitted by crunch
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 6:10pm

they still have to temper it with overall pool $$, at least.

that one aspect tames down an otherwise scary scenario where a team with money and some tradable pieces could really dominate a draft with a combination of picks and loot.

well, that and it's rare anyone drafts a slam-dunk in any draft no matter the position...and beyond rare for it not to happen with the first few picks of the 1st round.

Submitted by Rob G.
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 6:19pm

they get extra pool $$ for that pick though

Submitted by crunch
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 6:23pm

ah...and meh.

i still like some of the safeguards to prevent abuse of the new system...it's a lot to take in, though.

Submitted by Arizona Phil
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 6:28pm

Wed, 11/30/2011 - 6:19pm — Rob G.New

they get extra pool $$ for that pick though

================================

ROB G: You are correct, sir!

A club gets as much Rule 4 Draft Top 10 Rounds pool money to spend (well, it's the club's own money, but pool money meaning "cap space" let's say) as the aggregate combined pre-assigned values of the slots it has in the first ten rounds, regardless of how many picks and how the picks were acquired (normal draft pick, compensation draft pick for losing an Article XX-B FA, or Competitive Balance Lottery pick), minus the value of the slot or slots for any draft pick or picks selected in the first ten rounds who do/does not sign.

Submitted by crunch
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 6:30pm

while most moves were good moves with give/take on both sides...

...i still cannot believe we're in an era where the owners are actually getting this much stuff done. owners and players working like this during the selig tenure has been almost HOF-worthy.

Submitted by Jim Hickmans Bat
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 2:41pm

I live in KC, so I've seen a LOT of DeJesus over the years. He's OK, $4.25MM would seem a fair price for what he brings to the table, basically a league-average performer with good defense and acceptable OBP. I agree with the Fukudome comp, the only difference being that DeJesus won't look as helpless at the plate at times like Fuku did against lefties.

They say they're going to play him everyday, but a Byrd/DeJesus platoon--or even a Jeff Baker or Reed Johnson platoon mate--would work pretty well in RF I think. In fact, given that Byrd makes $5MM, I think I'd prefer Theo and Jed try to trade him and go with the Baker or Johnson option. That platoon with DeJesus would cost $6MM tops and ought to produce well over an 800 OPS and (if Johnson) above average UZR.

Not a bad first move for the front office.

Submitted by The Real Neal
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 3:26pm

The previous regime signed Soriano and said he would play in right (at first), so the RF thing shouldn't be set in stone.

Submitted by jacos
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 3:37pm

I thought he was brought in to play Center and bat leadoff and moved when he got hurt.

Submitted by Charlie
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 4:04pm

I think he was moved to LF when it was apparent that he simply sucked at CF. I thought he was the starting LF at the point when he got hurt running the bases.

Submitted by The Real Neal
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 4:04pm

Not sure if they really ever set in stone but the speculation was that he would play right or center, but in ST they tried him in center and he was pretty good there so left him.

Submitted by Charlie
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 5:05pm

I don't remember him being pretty good there. If I remember, the company line at the time was not complaining about him there and suggesting that it might work out.

Submitted by The Real Neal
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 7:56pm

Well, by all the statistical measures he was better than average in center.

Submitted by big_lowitzki
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 7:52am

In the 12 games that he played there? You are making a claim about the defensive metrics of Soriano in CF based on 12 games?

Submitted by The Real Neal
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 9:45am

I am making a claim based on observation. The statistics support the claim. Based on the limited statisical data available, you would come to what conclusion?

Submitted by big_lowitzki
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 10:49am

I am making a claim based on observation. The statistics support the claim.

No, the statistics don't support the claim. They don't support anything, because there is far from an adequate sample to make ANY conclusions other than there is not enough data.

Based on the limited statisical data available, you would come to what conclusion?

Simple... that there is not even close to enough data to make any statistical conclusion. He had a total of 29 chances in 100 innings. To pretend that it is all meaningful is just absurd.

Submitted by The Real Neal
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 11:00am

I am not an expert. What sample size is generally used to come up with a standard deviation and a confidence interval?

FYI, he certainly had more than 29 chances in the 100.1 innings, if you use a stat like UZR.

Submitted by big_lowitzki
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 11:00am

I don't know the exact numbers in this situation, but WELL more than 29 chances. But I'm pretty sure that you already know that.

Do you seriously think that 12 games, 100 innings, and 29 chances is a legitimate amount of data to give any kind of meaningful analysis of Soriano's defense in CF?

Submitted by big_lowitzki
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 11:26am

Fangraphs: "Like with any defensive statistic, you should always use three years of UZR data before trying to draw any conclusions on the true talent level of a fielder."

Big League Stew: "many people prefer to look at three-year UZRs in order to have stable data."

It is completely absurd to imply that 12 starts in CF is a reasonable amount of data to look at.

Submitted by The Real Neal
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 12:30pm

But it wasn't just by UZR, I said "By ALL measures". Also he passed the eyeball test. There is also something called Spring Training where he also played center field. The reason that he moved wasn't because he wasn't playing the position tolerably well, in case some people forgot.

We can just agree to disagree. I think you can use stastical evidence of any amount to support a claim. If a guy has one at bat, and hits a home run, I am going to think he's a good hitter. He may not be, but the statistcal evidence I have at that point supports the hypothesis. You think that there's no way to think anything about a player's defensive abilities without three years of data. Fine.

If we use your proposed cutoff Epstien has made a mistake in thinking DeJesus is an above average right fielder, because there's insufficient data.

By the way, the typical minimum of data points a statician will require to come up with a confidence interval is 30. Why fangraphs says to use 3 years of data (a rule of thumb, which is pretty stupid since some fielders get considerably more chances than others anyway) is basically because of the definition of what constitutes a "data point". It's not just a "chance" which is incorrect terminology anyway. When Soriano had 29 put outs, he probably had twice as many "chances" since any single or double hit to him has a "chance" to be an error if he muffs it or mis-fires the throw back to the infield, or if he throws a way a ball he made a catch on. So he had maybe 60 data points, which is plenty to do a confidence interval. You could be about 99% confident that he wasn't likely to make a lot of errors playing center field.

The way UZR defines a data point is something like "a ball hit on the same trajectory (high fly) , with the same speed (hard), from a certain handed hitter (Right), from a certain handed pitcher(left) who tends to throw groundballs(high) to a single fielding zone (X3)." That's why they say you need three years of data, because you're not likely to get 30+ samples of like data for a single season, especially when talking about outfielders (and not that this totally discounts the defensive positioning of the player/coaches and the pitchers ability to pitch to the defense.) There's other problems (like the way they divide responsibility for hits in zones that are between players, and center fielders being able to game the system by catching everything they can) in there as well.

Submitted by big_lowitzki
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 12:42pm

**If a guy has one at bat, and hits a home run, I am going to think he's a good hitter.**

Then you know a lot less about baseball than I thought.

Submitted by The Real Neal
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 1:52pm

LOL right back at you.

Submitted by John Beasley
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 2:49pm

Does anyone know HOW MANY chances all CFs had in 100 innings in 2007? Because from what I saw of Soriano there, including his final "performance" there at home against the Padres, maybe that's not a lot of chances because he couldn't run down shit.

Submitted by The Real Neal
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 3:40pm

The league range factor per 9 innings was 2.71. Soriano's was 2.60, so there's one measurement where he was below average.

If you watched him play center field in San Diego in 2006, he came out of the game presumably with an injury, so that may have had something to do with what you saw.

Submitted by VirginiaPhil
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 6:09pm

Better if you gave an example of Epstein signing a player to play a position and then allowing him to be moved. I looked at J.D. Drew and he played right field almost exclusively.

Epstein's idea of a left fielder is Crawford, not Soriano (who would not be comfortable in any defensive role).

Submitted by The Real Neal
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 7:58pm

So Epstein was the GM of Boston for 9 years, yet, his idea of a left fielder was only defined by the guy he put there in one of 9 years.... How does that make any sense?

Submitted by crunch
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 8:05pm

speaking of...

it's amazing there's a LF'r out there (soriano) that might be worse in the field than manny ramirez.

Submitted by The Real Neal
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 8:23pm

They're not even close.

Submitted by crunch
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 8:32pm

not even about to touch that.

Submitted by VirginiaPhil
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 10:00pm

You want me to go look up who played left during Epstein's first eight years? I just know it wasn't J.D. Drew.

Sometimes I write one sentence too many. The point of my comment was to ask YOU what Epstein had done in Boston to suggest that DeJesus was going to move around. The example you gave was something Hendry did.

Submitted by The Real Neal
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 9:49am

OK. Maybe you should ask a question rather than making an odd statement, which is supposed to imply a question.

Jacob Ellsbury played all three spots in 2008, primarily center in 2009, lost his CF gig in 2010, and was slated to play left, and then moved back to center in 2011.

Submitted by 10man
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 8:57pm

wow, you actually paid good $$ to watch royals games?

Submitted by jacos
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 4:49pm

Good luck Ricketts in getting help from government.
The football stadium that's used 10 times a year and not built with alteast a retractable roof to host Super Bowls and Final fours and the baseball field built for a fan base smaller then the soccer team is not making their nut.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/brea...

FU Jim Thompson, should have shipped your ass with Reinsdork to FL back in 1988.

Submitted by crunch
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 5:12pm

so the cubs just signed a singles hitting, average speed, low-arm-quality RF'r for 2 years. i hope soriano is going somewhere and there's another RF option, honestly. ...3rd base is gonna be fun to fill, too.

not surprising since it was almost a given for weeks...but meh. at least the cubs can afford it.

also,

"Why did DeJesus have such a poor year offensively? When you dig into his numbers, it becomes apparent that DeJesus hasn’t suffered a skill degradation at the plate."

what player has fangraphs been watching? did they even see him swing a bat last year? that's just ignorant. BABIP being dismissed outside of ranges as "luck" is getting old. when a guy is pounding what used to be line drives into grounders to the infielders that's not a lack of luck.

Submitted by Rob G.
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 5:14pm

what this thread was missing was the voice of reason...

anyway, his LD% stayed the same over the last 3 years, his groundball rate went down last year and his flyball rate went up. Did you see him last year?

Submitted by crunch
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 5:21pm

yeah, i saw him swinging like he was a kid again, missing more pitches than he should and blooping stuff off the bat. late night west coast games keep me warmer during the summer...live for those 10pm eastern start times.

the line-drive stroke wasn't there consistently. he almost got benched in august before he turned his swing around a bit.

i dont think it's horrible, but him in RF...ew. it's a small time contract for a team that can afford it...especially next year.

Submitted by Rob G.
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 5:26pm

so maybe you didn't watch his games with the Royals then...

when a guy is pounding what used to be line drives into grounders to the infielders that's not a lack of luck.

his LD% stayed the same over the last 3 years, his groundball rate went down last year and his flyball rate went up.

Submitted by crunch
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 5:34pm

rates don't quantify quality vs. the pitch given to swing at.

he wasn't smacking the ball mark-grace-style around the park and he was pathetic against lefties pounding him inside.

maybe he made an adjustment as the season winded down and the cubs feel he's got his stroke back...i didn't pay that close attention, but noticed earlier (for much of the season) him blooping and ground pounding hittable pitches via crap contact.

it's not the same crap contact as where i was talking about ian stewart...who seems to swing through a plane at the same place no matter where the pitch is...it's like his shoulders/elbows/wrists are locked on one motion.

Submitted by Rob G.
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 5:47pm

he's pretty much always been pathetic versus lefties...

so you're theory is he had better pitches to hit last year than years past...I'm amazed at your intricate knowledge of David DeJesus and what pitchers have thrown to him over the years.

but in general, it's not a good idea to attack someone else's ignorance with your own...

Submitted by crunch
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 5:58pm

nah, he hits lefties fine...not with much power. he's not a lefty r.johnson...he's got an everyday approach at the place, esp. when he was with KC. he's not platoon, imo...well, he was showing last year he might be. the age thing doesn't help much while handicapping it.

he's always had a nice/clean stroke with his swing.

also, your proposed theory isn't my theory.

i watched the guy turn hitable pitches into outs at a rate that isn't good for all but his 20+ game hitting streak during april/early may and his late season explosion that started vs. TB.

also, you're getting kinda snarky. i'm telling you what i saw. you asked...i told...it's what i saw.

if you wanna get all technical, i probably saw at least 250+ of his abs and it was a consistent viewing all year.

Submitted by Rob G.
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 6:30pm

nah, he hits lefties fine...not with much power. he's not a lefty r.johnson.

.292/368/447 vs. righties
.264/328/362 vs. lefties

the last 2 years being even more pronounced

keep going, you'll get something right

also, you're getting kinda snarky. i'm telling you what i saw. you asked...i told...it's what i saw.

sorry for the snark, you started it by attacking an article for being ignorant with your own ignorance. Had you just stopped by saying BABIP just for BABIP sake is lazy, you had something, actually a very good point, but then you jumped to some fucked up conclusion based on a handful of at-bats you saw that could have been easily checked by a simple 10-second internet search.

And now you're in the midst of what 98% of the Internet community does, which is dig in your heels and not admit that you made a mistake.

Submitted by crunch
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 6:38pm

take out last year with OAK and his first season you got a mid-.340 ob% guy vs lefties...its' been a while since anyone's been afraid to leave him in vs a lefty. last year he lost some ABs vs. lefties, though...lost a week to a thumb...a little while late for his hip.

also, what i saw and what im saying isn't ignorant. you're focusing on a statement as a complete statement that's all encompassing rather than me just throwing something i noticed out there. i saw crap quality contact...you see me complaining about him hitting ground balls. he hit crappy fly balls, too. the main point of my criticism was everything being chalked up to luck when talking about abnormal BABIP. i didn't feel the need to fully break down every aspect for dejesus.

the guy spent a good chunk of the season turning hitable pitches into pure crap. he is not a guy who gets his ob% from walking...he gets it from his bat putting balls in play and tempering it with a dozen or so walks more than other "average" hitters.

Submitted by crunch
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 6:47pm

also, fwiw...i'd be fine with this if they shift soriano and get another option for RF.

he's a wheel-spinning byrd-type bat...he's probably not going to help much or hurt much, but when/if he starts sucking it's going to be an ugly decline because he's not got far to fall.

i'd much rather have him LF with his arm. his glove is going to be good no matter where you stick him and it's nice to have him as a CF-shift-over option in case of injury or something awesome like lahair showing an everyday starter quality making byrd expendable...or whatever.

Submitted by George Altman
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 7:21pm

I'd like to see a Cubs outfield (and infield for that matter) that has Soriano on the bench waiting to pinch hit in the 8th or 9th inning if he has to be on the team at all. St. Louis and Tampa made the playoffs on the last day of the season.......one game difference.

If I was a pitcher on the Cubs and I had to watch Soriano play LF, I would have to throw up every time I got back to the dugout. I don't give a crap what offense he 'brings' to the lineup, his defense is baseball-retarded.

Here's your $54M, Fonzie. Enjoy retirement.

Submitted by Arizona Phil
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 5:51pm

Today is the day when Article XX-B MLB Type "A" and Type "B" free-agents who were offered salary arbitration on 11/23 must decide whether to accept or decline the offer.

We know that Aramis Ramirez will decline (or else he wouldn't have declined the player option part of his $16M mutual option for 2012), but Carlos Pena might accept, and if he does he immediately goes back onto the Cubs 40-man roster. And because he would no longer be considered an Article XX-B MLB free-agent, he would NOT receive the automatic "no trade" rights through June 15th that Article XX-B MLB free-agents get if they decline salary arbitration and sign an MLB contract, so Pena could be traded if the Cubs subsequently sign or acquire another 1B later this off-season that they like better.

If Pena does accept the offer of salary arbitration and the Cubs and Pena cannot come to an agreement on a 2012 contract, the matter would proceed to an arbitration hearing sometime in February.

The Cubs could offer Pena a contract for any amount of money and without regard to the max 20% cut rule that normally applies (although the salary offered must be at least the MLB minimum salary), but the three-person arbitration panel would have to choose either the Cubs offer or Pena's figure, so the Cubs couldn't low-ball him and win.

If a contract is awarded through the arbitration processs, the Cubs could release Pena at the end of Spring Training (prior to the start of the 2012 MLB regular season) and pay him 25% of his 2012 salary as severance, but only if he is clearly outplayed in Cactus League Spring Training games by other players competing for his slot on the 25-man roster.

If he is not clearly outplayed, the Cubs could still release him at the end of Spring Training, but then they could be on the hook for Pena's entire 2012 salary (minus the pro-rated portion of the MLB minimum salary if he subsequently signs with another club) if Pena files a grievance (which he certainly would) and wins (which he very likely would).

Submitted by Rob G.
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 6:42pm

these links say the deadline is Dec. 7th and I haven't seen one bit of news today about any accepting or declining which would be rare for this point of the day, even if the deadline is midnight.

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/schedule/important_dat...

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?page...

Submitted by Arizona Phil
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 6:55pm

Wed, 11/30/2011 - 6:42pm — Rob G

these links say the deadline is Dec. 7th and I haven't seen one bit of news today about any accepting or declining which would be rare for this point of the day, even if the deadline is midnight.

=================================

ROB G: The deadline to offer salary arbitration to Article XX-B MLB free-agents was 12/1 and the deadline for a player to accept or decline the offer was 12/7 in the 2006 CBA, but (with the agreement and approval of the MLBPA) the dates were changed last year to 11/'23 (salary arbitration offered by the club) and 11/30 (salary arbitration accepted or declined by the player).

The change was made at the same time the MLB contract tender date was changed from 12/12 to 12/2. (BTW, the 12/2 contract tender date will remain the same in the new CBA).

Submitted by Rob G.
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 7:00pm

I guess we'll see, those links do have the 23rd, but maintain that the 7th is the date for them to accept.

And as I said, very surprised not to hear one piece of news on it today.

The articles from the day they were offered arbitration say the 7th as well, well 11pm CST on the 6th.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20111...

http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/727...

Submitted by Arizona Phil
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 2:11am

Here is a fairly coherent article from September 2010 that succinctly explains the changes MLB & MLBPA introduced last year, more than a year before the 2006-11 CBA was scheduled to expire.

http://phillies.scout.com/2/1007609.html

The article notes the change from a 15-day "exclusive period" post-World Series to only five days post-WS (which was also the case this year), as well as the change in offering salary arbitration to MLB Article XX-B free-agents having been moved up a week from 12/1 (club offer) and 12/7 (player's decision) to 11/23 (club offer) and 11/30 (player's decision), and the MLB contract tender deadline moved-up ten days from 12/12 to 12/2.

BTW, RHPs Frank Francisco and Jason Frasor were the only two free-agents who accepted salary arbitration offers last year, and their decisions were reported on November 30th and the players were added back to their respective club's 40-man roster on 12/1. (Francisco eventually got traded to TOR in the Mike Napoli deal).

Now, I suppose there could have been still another change made again this season that was not announced in the media, where free-agents who are offered salary arbitration get two weeks instead of one week to decide whether to accept or decline, but I don't know why the clubs would have agreed to that.

Making the salary arbitration decision period two weeks (which is a full week longer than before) essentially ties the hands of clubs who offer arbitration to their free-agents for two full weeks instead one just one, and it makes it more difficult for clubs to make FA and trade plans going into the Winter Meetings when they have salary arbitration offers to their own free-agents hanging over their heads for most of the week, which is one of the reasons why all of the deadlines were moved-up last year.

In the new CBA (starting next season), clubs (and their free-agents) must make important decisions even earlier.

Clubs must decide by the 5th day following the conclusion of the World Series whether to tender a one-year guaranteed contract with a salary at least equal to the average salary of the 125 highest-paid MLB players the previous season to their Article XX-B MLB free-agents in order to receive a compensation draft pick if the player subsequently signs with a different club, and then free-agents who are offered such a contract have seven days to decide whether to accept the offer.

Submitted by Arizona Phil
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 3:07am

To reply to ROB G and to myself, I can see that the deadline for MLB Article XX-B free-agents to accept or decline offers of salary arbitration has indeed (once again) been moved back to December 7 (the date in the 2006-11 CBA) from November 30 (apparently the change was made for only the 2010-11 off-season), and the MLB contact tender deadline has also been moved back to the old date (December 12) from December 2 (again, the deadline from last year, which BTW will be the contract tender deadline in the new CBA), although somewhat strangely the December 1 salary arbitration offer deadline (like the other dates, also part of the 2006-11 CBA) was once again moved up to November 23 this off-season. (this was the only deadline change made last year that remained the same in 2011).

Submitted by Rob G.
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 6:32pm

Iannetta to Angels for Tyler Chatwood, Rockies sign Ramon Hernandez

Submitted by Rob G.
on Wed, 11/30/2011 - 6:37pm

interesting, appears teams will play the bare minimum of interleague games necessary in 2013

staying in the 15-18 range rather than the 30-40 range, not sure how that all works.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20111...

Submitted by jacos
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 7:21am

WGN speculating DeJesus will be batting lead off

Submitted by Charlie
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 8:44am

What a team full of #7 hitters this is right now.

Submitted by The E-Man
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 10:49am

Team full of #7 hitters and #4 and 5 pitchers.

Submitted by Rob G.
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 10:59am

Poor Matt Garza

Submitted by Charlie
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 4:46pm

This lineup is turning into Starlin Castro and seven other starters, just like the rotation turned into Matt Garza and four other pitchers. And neither Castro nor Garza are likely to carry the club.

If the Cubs aren't going to rebuild, they need to start redistributing some of their wealth away from the bullpen; turn Marshall into a starter somehow, shop Marmol as soon as he recoups some value, and do not pay market value for a relief pitcher until there's another Division Champs or Bust season. I'm starting to get on board with the idea of dealing Garza in order to fill more of the various gaps (if the Cubs aren't going to sign one of the sluggers this offseason).

Submitted by Cubster
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 9:07am

WGN speculating DeJesus will be batting lead off
---
from the Sun-Times's article on DeJesus:

DeJesus batted in every spot in the lineup last season, with the fifth (30 games) and sixth (34 games) spots representing his most action. In his career, DeJesus has batted more games out of the leadoff spot than any other position in the lineup (651 games).

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/cubs/...

DeJesus has batted leadoff much more than any other position. He doesn't seem to steal bases though. High in SB was 2007 (10) and 2008 (11).
Career splits:
Leading off...
PA 2930; .292 .365 .437 .801

his next best splits are batting 5th... but a much smaller sample size (121 PA). He has 408 PA batting 2nd and 540 PA batting 3rd.
Batting 5th: .292 .347 .528 .876
Batting 2nd: .256 .329 .397 .726

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/spl...

Submitted by Ryno
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 10:06am

DeJesus batting leadoff raises interesting questions about the future of Soriano.

Submitted by big_lowitzki
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 10:51am

DeJesus batting leadoff raises interesting questions about the future of Soriano.

Why? When did he last bat leadoff? He hasn't hit out of the leadoff slot in over two years.

Submitted by Ryno
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 2:29pm

It didn't make sense two years ago, either, did it?

Submitted by Tito
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 9:01am

Move along if not interested...but a query for those who like to talk about this stuff.

I joined a new league and inherited a relatively thin roster...but the roster does have Felix Hernandez and Adrian Gonzalez, and now I'm getting deluged with offers for them. Most of them are ridiculous 4-1 deals that net me volume but not much else. But this one guy REALLY wants King Felix and has now offered me one that intrigues me:

Carlos Gonzalez, Jeremy Hellickson, Chase Utley, J.P. Arencibia and Jhoulys Chacin for Felix Hernandez and David
Ortiz

Not worth going into league specifics (ask me offline if interested), but I will say that (a) I do need an OF (currently have Choo, Fowler, Abreu, L. Cain, Raburn, Cuddyer) and really need a 2B (Cuddyer/Raburn are eligible there, other is Brian Roberts), plus I have an Utley man crush despite him being in decline.

With Hellickson, my SPs would be: Hellickson, Strasburg, Chacin, Cueto, E. Santana, Chapman (assuming he starts).

This league starts two catchers; I have Montero and Soto.

He earlier offered a 5-1 deal (and hasn't rescinded it) that offered Yonder Alonso and David Price with Utley, Arencibia and Chacin for King Felix minus Ortiz. He threw CarGo into the mix after I mentioned he was someone I'm interested in.

Worst-case scenario, I keep Hernandez, which I'd intended to do anyway.

Any thoughts? Thanks to anyone so inclined.

Submitted by Ryno
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 10:09am

Carlos Gonzalez, Jeremy Hellickson, Chase Utley, J.P. Arencibia and Jhoulys Chacin for Felix Hernandez and David
Ortiz

My initial reaction is: Why the hell would anyone offer that and why the hell would you refuse it?

I mean the earlier offer is completely different than this offer. Cargo isn't a "pot sweetener", he's a "centerpiece".

Submitted by Tito
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 10:14am

I didn't refuse it. I'm just mulling it over. There are issues of roster size/keepers, etc.

To answer the "why the offer" question, the guy just has a thing for King Felix. He's been bombarding me all week with shit offers until now.

Submitted by Rob G.
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 10:16am

make him do the original deal and flip Alonso for CarGo

second deal doesn't seem to great to me, although it leaves you with an extra catcher you can trade.

Submitted by Cubster
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 9:11am

Wittenmeyer speculates on a retreaded lefty starter...I thought we got rid of Tom Gorzellany.

Sources say another player who could be a value signing is left-hander Chris Capuano. After significant struggles in his final two seasons with the Milwaukee Brewers, the former 18-game winner signed with the New York Mets last year and went 11-12 with a 4.52 ERA in 31 starts.

‘‘We know we have to add pitching depth, and that’s something we’re focused on,’’ Hoyer said.

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/cubs/...

Submitted by Ryno
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 10:18am

I'm not keen on that idea.

Submitted by Cubster
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 9:55am

BP's transaction take on acquiring DeJesus. Meh.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php...

Submitted by The Real Neal
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 10:08am

Pay to play 8 (

Anything of particular insterest we hadn't noted?

Submitted by Cubster
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 10:25am

Not sure there was much news in the BP analysis...writeup by RJ Anderson

Meet the first notable signing of Jed Hoyer’s career in Chicago. The last two seasons of DeJesus’s career resemble a whirligig, with some ups and downs and a move from right to left.

Back in 2010, the Royals were poised to trade DeJesus at the deadline to a member of a captivated market. Reportedly, talks had gotten to the point with the Rays where Jake McGee’s name was bandied about. Before Dayton Moore pulled the trigger, DeJesus suffered a thumb injury, ending his season and those talks alike. Kansas City still elected to trade DeJesus, despite projected Type-A status, to Oakland for Vin Mazzaro and Justin Marks. DeJesus did not maintain that status, hitting .240/.323/.376 for the Athletics—an output that culminated in the second lowest True Average of his career.

If DeJesus had elected to sign a one-year deal to rebuild his value, no one would have batted an eyelash. Instead, the Cubs gave DeJesus a guaranteed two years and $10 million, with the chance to earn more. Ostensibly, DeJesus will become the team’s starting right fielder for now, therefore removing Tyler Colvin from the starting lineup.

DeJesus might leave fans feeling a twinge of déjà vu with a skill set similar to Kosuke Fukudome’s. He can play center field, making him something more than a tweener, and has in the past. Unlike the prototypical center fielder, DeJesus does not steal bases well or often and has more stolen base failures than successes over the last three seasons. A .277/.349/.417 offering since 2009 paints a picture of what DeJesus offers at the dish, including struggles against left-handed pitching; some walks, never more than 9.1 percent; some power, but more gap-based than light tower; and good contact skills, excepting 2011.

One wonders what role, if any, residual effects from the thumb injury played in his down 2011. Another factor is Oakland’s ballpark. Wrigley Field is more endearing to left-handed hitters than the previous ballparks DeJesus has played home games in, making an offensive bounceback a possibility. At the same time, DeJesus will turn 32 in December, and expecting a slight decline is reasonable. Using Wins Above Replacement Player, DeJesus has been worth 3.8, 1.7, and 2.1 wins over the past three seasons. Suggesting that DeJesus is a two-to-three-win player is not a stretch.

With DeJesus now in the fold, the Cubs would like to move Alfonso Soriano to another team. Hoyer may find that moving Soriano to another dimension is an easier feat, with the $54 million and no-trade clause in his contract to overcome. Alternatively, the Cubs could look to trade Marlon Byrd, who has $6.5 million remaining on his deal. The impetus to trade Soriano or Byrd is to make room for top prospect Brett Jackson. Jackson played well last season while splitting time between the high minors, so expect to see him patrolling the Wrigley outfield at some point this summer, and expect DeJesus to be flanking him.

Submitted by Cubster
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 9:58am

DeJesus new home in Wheaton, don't forget to bring a housewarming gift...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaki...

Submitted by Cubster
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 10:38am

how many wins was Fukudome? At first glance it looks like an upgrade. Fukudome did draw more walks (except for 2010) with a career high of 112 (2009). DeJesus career high was 87 walks (also 2009) but he did draw 86 last year.

Fukudome WARP:
2008 @ 1.6
2009 @2.3
2010 @1.7
2011 @1.0

DeJesus WARP:
2008 @2.6
2009 @ 3.8 (career best)
2010 @1.7
2011 @ 2.1

Submitted by Rob G.
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 10:56am

It'd be an upgrade if we got 28 year old Dejesus, but 32 year old Dejesus will probably put up similar value to what you posted for Fukudome.

Submitted by big_lowitzki
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 11:03am

I'm not sure that "similar value" to Fukudome, but at a much cheaper price, is a bad thing.

I've always thought that Fukudome was overpaid but underrated by a lot of Cubs fans.

Submitted by The Real Neal
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 12:43pm

But it doesn't do us much good, even if he is a relative bargain, unless we make a lot of other moves. In the meantime it could retard the growth and consequently value of other players.

Just by itself, probably not a good move, but let's see what else happens. If we sign Fielder, Johnson and Beuhrle, having him for less than $5 million looks pretty nice.

Submitted by John Beasley
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 2:55pm

If by July B-Jax is hitting .320 at AAA and the Cubs are 10 games back, I'm sure the $5.75M post-2012 owed DeJesus won't stop EpHoy from shopping him.

Submitted by Rob Richardson
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 3:17pm

Why trade DeJesus when you could just trade Marlon Bryd if you need to free up space.

Submitted by The Real Neal
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 3:42pm

I wasn't talking about Jackson, mostly about LaHair, maybe Colvin and Campana a little too.

Submitted by big_lowitzki
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 3:45pm

Sure...the only benefit to getting the same production for less money is if the saved money is invested at a different position to get more production there.

Submitted by Rob G.
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 11:50am

Building with young core (hope someone asked who that is besides Castro)
does not envision moving Marshall out of pen
(non-existent) SP is top priority at winter meetings

Submitted by The Real Neal
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 12:40pm

I really don't get not trying Marshall as a starter. Where's the downside? His agent has pretty much announced that he wants to do it.

Submitted by crunch
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 4:29pm

because once he hits 80 pitches his arm loses velocity.

can he do what he couldnt do in the past? dunno...

Submitted by Charlie
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 4:55pm

So why the hell not try it in Spring Training and April and see how he does? Where's the risk? Why not at least pretend that you believe in him as a starting pitcher--couldn't hurt his value.

Submitted by Rob G.
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 4:58pm

I'm still trying to justify that Garza could be had (for a high price), but LH bullpen guy cannot.

could just be posturing and all, but both are set to be free agents around the same time. And hard to see how trading Garza makes them any better this year.

Submitted by crunch
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 5:03pm

theo also made comments about garza that he wants to build around him...dumpster/Z could come off the books next year.

he's got flexibility with money starting next year...could work out interesting this year with some deferred contracts.

Submitted by Arizona Phil
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 7:22pm

Thu, 12/01/2011 - 4:58pm — Rob G.

I'm still trying to justify that Garza could be had (for a high price), but LH bullpen guy cannot.

could just be posturing and all, but both are set to be free agents around the same time. And hard to see how trading Garza makes them any better this year.

===========================

RON G: Especially when Sean Marshall is going to be a free-agent after next season, and if he remains in the bullpen there is no way he gets a $12M+ (guaranteed money) contract offer from the Cubs post-2012 (which would be required to net a compensation draft pick).

Either you move him to the starting rotation in Spring Training or trade him.

At least Matt Garza is under club control through 2013, and as a starting pitcher he actually might be worth a one-year $12M+ contract offer post-2013 so that the Cubs would get one compensation draft pick if he signs elsewhere.

Submitted by Rob G.
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 12:55pm

on that note about SP, other GM's expect Cubs to move Garza according to Heyman

Submitted by navigator
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 1:49pm

Are the Cubs trying to move Garza or no? my head is spinning...

//Theo on Garza: "He's exactly the type of guy we'd like to build around." #Cubs//

Submitted by Rob G.
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 2:32pm

the rest of the story...

Theo's challenge with Garza, #Cubs: "Being honest about where you are as an organization and when your opportunity to really win comes.”

Submitted by Rob G.
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 12:36pm

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/top-...

Submitted by The Real Neal
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 12:55pm

Interesting...

It looks like Vitters gets a -4 ranking due to dissapointment. Prospect wise, how do you argue he's any worse than Ha? Same age, same level, same production, roughly the same defensive value.

Submitted by Rob G.
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 1:38pm

I don't know much about Marc Hulet, but his lists seem to be from someone that just reads a lot rather than knowing anyone or watching any of these guys.

Submitted by The Real Neal
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 3:45pm

Yep, that's what I think as well. "I don't scout prospects, but I play an evaluator on TV". I am certainly guilty of this as well, but he pays a bit too much attention to minor league stats.

Submitted by Rob G.
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 1:00pm

https://twitter.com/JordanBernfield

he's either spewing BS or Fielder isn't really in the picture

Theo: "As far as adding a left handed bat? Yeah, it'd be nice, but under the right circumstances. But we're not going to force anything."

Says if they do, it needs to be someone who can defend, run the bases well, be a solid club house guy, etc.

Submitted by The Real Neal
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 1:16pm

No pun intended, but if I were to sign Fielder, I'd probably do it with a front loaded contract. You figure he is going to play first for three or four years, so you give him more money then, then cut it back in years 5-8 when you figure you'll slot him as a DH (or to make him tradeable to an AL team as a DH).

Prince, get on the treadmill, you have to be a speedy first basemen to play for the Cubs.

That's probably what has kept us out of the World Series, Frank Chance could steal some fucking bases!

Submitted by Seamhead
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 1:16pm

If he has let it be known that Garza can be had by the highest bidder, then he is indeed posturing.

Submitted by The Real Neal
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 1:41pm

Well... let's see what he can get. If he can get a youngish #3 starter and a five star prospect for him, it would make sense to pull the trigger, wouldn't it?

Submitted by Rob G.
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 1:33pm

Theo calls him the most valuable left handed reliever in baseball.

https://twitter.com/JordanBernfield/status/14...

Submitted by The Real Neal
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 1:58pm

Speaking of tallest midgets. If I know my lefties that puts him #15 in Fangraph WAR among lefty pitchers.

Submitted by The Real Neal
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 1:42pm

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/oppo...

Pretty balanced writeup.

Submitted by VirginiaPhil
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 5:20pm

He says:

If FanGraphs had a statistic for the most vacant position based on an organization’s ability to fill the void internally at the triple-A or big league level, the Cubs third base position might top that list.

Funny thing, the Cubs just had three guys double-A or higher who still project as third basemen (assuming Vitters does) who finished in the top ten (4, 8 and 9) in hits in the AFL.

Maybe first base and left field are worse trouble spots.

Submitted by Rob G.
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 1:42pm

http://www.gaslampball.com/2011/12/1/2603376/...

"not a big believer in untouchables"...

bring on Mat Latos and Chase Headley!!!

Submitted by Rob G.
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 1:51pm

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20111...

more reactions to the draft changes

Submitted by The Real Neal
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 2:33pm

Moore's quotes there are awesome. Maybe the only "must read" I've ever seen MLB.com put out.

Submitted by Rob G.
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 2:09pm

"If there is a move that makes us that much better in the short term, but it's at the expense of doing things the right way, through a corps of young players, we're not going to make that move. Any rumor you hear or any potential player move, it's probably worth your while to assess it through that lense.

"I'm not going to say we aren't going to make a move that's unanticipated, or catch people by surprise, or not perfectly fit into that little box that's generally our philosophy. That's how we are evaluating moves as we look to build this thing."

not sure what that says about the DeJesus move, it doesn't really block Jackson since he'll be playing CF by next season at the latest. Certainly don't think much of Colvin and not sure what means for Ha or Szczur.

http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/cubs/post/_/i...

Submitted by Charlie
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 4:59pm

Doesn't seem like there is any point in considering Ha or Szczur when handing out 2-year contracts to right fielders. They've got plenty of seasoning time left in the minors.

Submitted by Ryno
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 2:33pm

I wouldn't worry about blocking minor leaguers. If there's no room for them on the big league roster, they can play in AAA. If they are destroying AAA and absolutely need a big league spot, you trade DeJesus or someone and make room. This is how normal ball teams work... we're just not used to seeing it in action.

Submitted by The E-Man
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 2:50pm

...we're just not used to seeing it in action.

ha!

Submitted by Rob G.
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 4:13pm

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball...

on B. Jackson

“He’s the type of guy we want here, and he’s got a bright future here,” Epstein said. “That said, I believe in having a player just about fully developed by the time he comes up to the big leagues. There has been a trend in the industry to kind of promote guys pretty quickly from Double-A. I don’t know that Triple-A is really looked at as a developmental level anymore, and it should be.

“Triple-A, we like to think of it as finishing school, and if a player still has weaknesses, and they all do -- everyone does as human beings -- Triple-A is a place to really round out, turn those weaknesses, get them to at least league average and then come up to the big leagues. We’re going to continue developing in the big leagues, but the job of the player development department is to fully round out our prospects. If a player seems ready and knocking on the door, for a position player especially, we’re going to really look to round out there development before they come up.”

Submitted by VirginiaPhil
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 5:50pm

So much for Jackson making the team out of spring training.

Jackson and LeMahieu will be 23 next season.

Ellsbury had 87 games at Pawtucket (AAA) at 23 before being called up, and was an ML rookie at 24.

Submitted by crunch
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 5:56pm

byrd is expendable in spring if dejesus's hip is in good shape and can cover CF...it'll help more if r.johnson comes back or campy learns to bunt.

cubs might have to hope for some other team's CF injury/suck or sell low on byrd at that point, though.

Submitted by The Real Neal
on Fri, 12/02/2011 - 8:33am

"Unlike my predecessor, I understand that you want to maximize the value of your players, and rushing them to the majors when they can play there, but maybe not excel, doesn't make business sense."

Submitted by Dusty Baylor
on Fri, 12/02/2011 - 9:16am

Also unlike my predecessor, I won't bring up players to the majors and then let them sit for weeks at a time, and not get a chance to succeed before yo-yo'ing them fro Iowa to Chciago and back.....
Is something I hope he was thinking

Submitted by jacos
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 4:22pm

I would get rid of George Offman tweets from the site-

georgeofman Soriano in play? 3 A.L. teams kicking the tires. Don't know them yet but Cubs would have to pay plenty and want youth in return

He's the genius behind Jason Schmidt 3/44 and Furcal to cubs being done deals.

Submitted by crunch
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 4:31pm

"He's the genius behind Jason Schmidt 3/44 and Furcal to cubs being done deals."

if he was the one who pushed b.roberts to the cubs from BAL he belongs in the TCR HOF.

Submitted by jacos
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 4:33pm

He was in that conga line also

Submitted by The E-Man
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 5:02pm

Still not as bad as Jessie Rogers (the idiot), when interviewing Antonio Alfonsceca actually asked him, "So, how did you get that sixth finger anyways? Were you born with that or something?"

Submitted by JoePepitone
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 8:52pm

Unbelievable!

Submitted by Arizona Phil
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 5:23pm

u, 12/01/2011 - 4:22pm — jacos

I would get rid of George Offman tweets from the site-

georgeofman Soriano in play? 3 A.L. teams kicking the tires. Don't know them yet but Cubs would have to pay plenty and want youth in return

He's the genius behind Jason Schmidt 3/44 and Furcal to cubs being done deals.

=========================

JACOS: Since the Cubs are basically just trying to unload Soriano and save a liitle bit of salary in the process, Soriano to the White Sox for Alex Rios might fly.

Here's why:

Soriano would probably be more-willing to waive his NTC if he can stay in the same city, the players' salaries over the next three years are close enough to where they could be equalized ($39.5M for Rios and $54M for Soriano 2012-14, with the Cubs and Sox splitting the $14.5M difference at $46.75M if the Cubs pay the Sox $7.25M), and Rios would actually fill a need for the Cubs (the RH-hitting 4th OF Hoyer talked about yesterday, not to mention opening up LF for a younger player).

The White Sox would exchange Rios for Soriano and add $7.25M in payroll spread over three years, and the Cubs would be exchanging Soriano for Rios and save $7.25M in payroll over the next three years (the $7.25M saved representing about 15% of Soriano's aggregate salary 2012-14, the 15% being the amount of savings the Cubs are reportedly looking for in any trade they might make).

Submitted by John Beasley
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 5:32pm

I'm not sure even Kenny Williams would invest $30M and two roster spots in a DH platoon. But if anyone would, it's probably him.

Submitted by George Altman
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 7:33pm

Phil,

I don't disagree with any of your logic or math here, but I had the experience of watching Rios 'play' CF at two games at The Cell this summer. One was the game vs. Detroit where he brutally misplayed two catches any MLB CF has to make.

I really can't say he's losing the defensive component to his game, and it might be he (like a lot of White Sox players this year) had a motivation problem. My observation was he needed a manager who was willing to put his size 11 shoe up his ass once in awhile. I think you'd be trading Soriano for a 'Soriano' with potential to play better defense if he felt like it.

Theo and Ricketts are by their own admission familiar with the concept of 'sunk costs', so if I could get an AL team to take Soriano with the Cubs paying $40M of his remaining salary that's the move I would be making. Until the Cubs get at least 3 #1-#2 starting pitchers like the Phillies, they need 6 or 7 everyday players who are solid average/plus at their defensive position.

Submitted by Arizona Phil
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 7:50pm

My thinking is that the Cubs aren't going to get a prospect of value back for Soriano even if they eat 85% of his remaining salary, so eating 85% of his remaining salary and at least getting a useful spare part (a veteran big league RH-hitting 4th OF who can play RF against the tougher LHSP) back in the deal is probably the best they can hope for.

Also, getting Soriano to waive his "no trade" might not be that easy, but staying in the same city might help make it more attractive to him.

I don't think of Rios as a potential front-line OF, just as a replacement for Reed Johnson and (if necessary) an occasional (or even frequent) platoon mate with David DeJesus in RF. No question Rios would provide a lot more HR power than your average 4th OF.

Submitted by Rob G.
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 8:11pm

A's are allegedly one team that at least kicked the tires on Soriano. They claim to have no major league outfielders at the moment and obviously lack power in their lineup. I'm sure they would expect to pay no more than $3-5M per year of Soriano's remaining salary and give up very little in the trade.

If Mariners don't land Fielder or Pujols, I could see some interest there.

White Sox only in a swap of bad contracts for Dunn or Rios, but I don't think know what that gets them other than a hopeful change of scenery.

Tigers have always shared similar like in players that Hendry and the Cubs did, maybe there's something there.

Submitted by jacos
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 8:49pm

Sox not taking on any extra salary.

See my post about tax payers having to chip in this year on paying for that dump.

Submitted by John Beasley
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 9:38pm

Tigers have DH locked up with VMart now, almost definitely not a fit.

Blue Jays, maybe? They could afford it and aren't loaded with talent.

Submitted by jacos
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 9:40pm

I would not be surprised if Jays got in on Pujols and Fielder.

Submitted by big_lowitzki
on Fri, 12/02/2011 - 12:00pm

The taxpayers/cell issue has absolutely nothing to do with white sox payroll.

Submitted by crunch
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 5:41pm

"some managers want to go around and kiss all the guys...i'm...i'm not good at kissing...guys."

welcome back to baseball bobby valentine. you've been missed.

Submitted by navigator
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 7:09pm

I dunno about that. He does a great job kissing his own ass...

Submitted by Sweet Lou
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 9:57pm

Would it make any sense for the Cubs to kick the tires on Jose Reyes? He's looking at $15-$18 million/year for five or six years right now.

I seem to recall that AZPhil feels that Castro will ultimately end up at second base. Would now be the time to make that move?

Submitted by jacos
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 10:02pm

Makes Nomar look like Cal Ripken.

Submitted by Jim Hickmans Bat
on Fri, 12/02/2011 - 3:55am

You don't pay that kind of money to a player who has averaged just 100 games played per year for three years running now. Add in his declining SB totals and his lousy defense, and the answer is a resounding no. Whoever signs Reyes will have bought themselves the next Carl Crawford contract. Good luck with that.

Submitted by Ryno
on Fri, 12/02/2011 - 8:14am

My opinion on this is no to your first question and yes to your second.

Submitted by crunch
on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 10:46pm

marlins snag h.bell 3/27....expected to non-tender juan "the artist formally known as leo nunez" oviedo

Submitted by Jim Hickmans Bat
on Fri, 12/02/2011 - 3:57am

....and Bell gets a 4th year at 9MM if he meets certain performance clauses. Shoot, given the Bell and Papelbon deals, Marmol is a bargain at 2/15, even with his hiccups this past year. Here's hoping Theo and Jed choose to trade him. I can live with Cashner, Carpenter or Wood as the new closer.

Submitted by Charlie
on Fri, 12/02/2011 - 7:52am

Or Marshall, if they insist that he's not going to start.

Submitted by The E-Man
on Fri, 12/02/2011 - 8:06am

Hmmm...

Not sure I buy the "Marshall as a closer" role.

Submitted by The Real Neal
on Fri, 12/02/2011 - 8:37am

Because he doesn't throw 95 or beceause he's left handed? He's our best reliever.

Submitted by The E-Man
on Fri, 12/02/2011 - 9:22am

Because he is more valuable as a set-up guy. Best in baseball, according to Theo.

Submitted by The Real Neal
on Fri, 12/02/2011 - 10:35am

Actually Theo called him the best left handed reliever, not the best setup guy. If he were the closer, he'd still be the best lefthanded reliever (assuming someone doesn't take the title).

Whether a player is more valuable as a closer or setup guy depends on the team and how he's used.

X
You may login with either your assigned username or your e-mail address.
The password field is case sensitive.
Loading