Church for Hill, please.

I like Ryan Church a lot, but I wouldn't give up Rich Hill for him.

I haven't heard any rumors about what teams might actually be interested in Jones and what the Cubs might want to try to get back in exchange. Any ideas there? Between his being two years younger and having played a little center field recently, I think Jones might be a better fit on the Cubs than Floyd anyway.

For now, it’s sink or swim with Pie.

$300M+ spent this offseason, and there are still problems in search of a solution. But hey, apparently it's nothing that throwing money at Cliff Floyd won't solve.

Apparently (I don't remember where I read this, maybe SI) at least part of the holdup is that Floyd wants to play every day, and he's not going to sign with the Cubs just to split time with Murton. So if and when Floyd signs, we get either: (1) the criminal wasting of Murton on the bench; or (2) an angry malcontent in Floyd who isn't getting what he wants. Score!

Not to mention that I'd bet $100 that, playing a full season, Murton would put up a higher OPS this year than Floyd does.

New-look Cubs ready to make rounds

Like a rich, drunken sorority girl just after plastic surgery!

I bet GMs are waiting in line to get some of this action.

I thought the whole idea was for Soriano to play center? I never thought it was a particularly good idea, but I also never heard when the plan changed. Hmm.

I thought the whole idea was for Soriano to play center? I never thought it was a particularly good idea, but I also never heard when the plan changed.

These are the Cubs. The "whole idea" was to sign a bunch of players, and figure out later where they'd all be playing. That's how we end up with things like the all-MI bench. The Cubs wanted Soriano, and so they signed him. It didn't particularly matter that they were set at the corner OF positions. Now they want Cliff Floyd. Again, doesn't matter that there's no place to put him.

If they really wanted to do something to make all of these pieces fit together, they'd move Jones to CF, sign Floyd and let him play RF, and move Soriano back to 2B (and Mark Derosa to some kind of super-sub position filling in 2-3 starts a week around in the infield and outfield). The defense might be brutal at times, but offensively the lineup would be pretty solid (so long as they found a platoon partner for Jones vs LHP):

Soriano
Murton
Lee
Ramirez
Floyd
Barrett
Jones
Izturis

That's a group that's going to score some runs.

I like Ryan Church a lot, but I wouldn't give up Rich Hill for him.

You're right. It was Marshall that was connected with the Church rumors earlier this off season. He'll work, too!

Hell, I'd trade Sean Marshall for Church in a heartbeat.

If they really wanted to do something to make all of these pieces fit together, they'd move Jones to CF, sign Floyd and let him play RF, and move Soriano back to 2B (and Mark Derosa to some kind of super-sub position filling in 2-3 starts a week around in the infield and outfield). The defense might be brutal at times, but offensively the lineup would be pretty solid (so long as they found a platoon partner for Jones vs LHP):

Derosa to short

I thought Jones has a torn labrum, can he even handle centerfield?

I thought Jones has a torn labrum, can he even handle centerfield?

Considering that most people can throw better with their "other" arm than Juan Pierre can, I don't think the Cubs are worrying too much about this.

Considering that most people can throw better with their "other" arm than Juan Pierre can, I don't think the Cubs are worrying too much about this.

Indeed. Considering we've survived both Pierre and OneDog 'arms' in CF - Jones' arm doesn't concern me.

Am I the only one that really hates the Cubs convention? Spinfest is right - everyone'll be hailing the acquisitions, Hendry will get to spout off more spin about how much better this team will be, yada, yada.... and NO ONE will bring up the fact that the Cubs' problems scoring runs the last few years are tied directly to the fact that they've had atrocious OBP/BB numbers - and not one of the offseason acquisitions addresses that problem.

Although I've never been to one, Cubs conventions strike me as being pretty similar to the town hall meetings that President Bush would have.

"Excuse me, Mr. Hendry, will Jason Marquis win 25 games this season, or only 20? And can my daughter give you a hug?"

It's a criminal waste to pay Soriano as leadoff. And his salary at least warrants him playing in CF.

Although I've never been to one, Cubs conventions strike me as being pretty similar to the town hall meetings that President Bush would have.

Mr Hendry, your team seems to have the momentum of a runaway freighttrain - why are the Cubs so good?

and NO ONE will bring up the fact that the Cubs' problems scoring runs the last few years are tied directly to the fact that they've had atrocious OBP/BB numbers - and not one of the offseason acquisitions addresses that problem.

I agree with your greater point, but actually people bring this up constantly ALL THE TIME around here. Wrongly, I might add. Sure, if the Cubs could find a three-pack of .400+ OBP players it would help them a great deal, but how is that going to happen?

If the Cubs fielded 8 bad OBP Sorianos, wouldn't they lead the league in runs?

The Cubs problem was that they didn't have enough good players. In getting Soriano, they have one more good player. If they fail this year, it's because they didn't get enough good players, not that the one they got was the wrong shape of good player.

That doesn't mean they didn't overpay. I'm just saying that Low-OBP is not the problem. It is part of the greater problem of general suckitude.

I agree with your greater point, but actually people bring this up constantly ALL THE TIME around here. Wrongly, I might add. Sure, if the Cubs could find a three-pack of .400+ OBP players it would help them a great deal, but how is that going to happen?

If the Cubs fielded 8 bad OBP Sorianos, wouldn't they lead the league in runs?

Well -- first -- "around here" yes, but I suspect it won't be an oft-repeated theme at the Cubs convention --- and I don't recall EVER hearing the issue directly posed to Hendry... nor his response.

I also strongly disagree with "wrongly"... since NL totals were easier to look up than MLB totals

In 2006, the Cubs finished dead last in the NL OBP and BBs -- and 2nd to last in runs scored. They finished 9th in HRs and 5th in AVG. The Phillies led the league in runs -- and also, in BBs, finishing 2nd in OBP (theey also finished 3rd in HRs and 3rd in AVG).

In 2005, they finished 9th in runs scored - last in BBs, 9th in OBP - but 2nd in HRs and 2nd in AVG. They Reds led the NL in runs scored- finishing 2nd in BBs, 3rd in OBP, led the league in HRs -- and finished 7th in AVG.

In 2004, they finished 7th in runs scored - 13th in BBs, 11th in OBP, led the league in HRs, and 6th in AVG. The Cards led the league in runs scored - finishing 8th in BBs, 3rd in HRs, 4th in OBP, and leading the leage in AVG.

In 2003, they finished 9th in runs scored - 13th in BBs, 13th in OBP, 8th in HRs, 11th in AVG. The Braves led the leage in runs scored -- leading the league in HRs and AVG and finishing 2nd in OBP and 6th in BBs.

It's an automatic OBP = runs scored -- but I see some rather strong correlations between OBP/BB numbers and run scored.

...should be "it's NOT an automatic OBP = runs scored".

I'm just saying that Low-OBP is not the problem. It is part of the greater problem of general suckitude.

I couldn't agree more. While every additional point of OBP is worth significantly more than an additional point of SLG, there is a trade-off that enables a team with a low OBP to excel offensively. The Tigers in 2006 and the Rangers in 2004 and 2005 had sub-330 team OBPs and yet finished near the top of the league in runs scored. The Cubs offense this year, as currently constructed, should provide a similar model.

Last year, Juan Pierre hit 292/330/388 with a 4.4 RC/27. He has been replaced offensively by Soriano, who projects to hit 265/324/498 with a 5.5 RC/27 according to ZiPS. The team OBP projects to be slightly worse as a result, but the offense is tremendously improved. In addition, after missing out on most of 2006, Derrek Lee represents a huge improvement in both OBP and SLG over his replacements that contributed heavily to the team's anemic offense. After finishing 15th in the NL in runs scored last season, the Cubs were projected to finish 4th in the NL in runs this year on the latest ZiPS thread, using the average value of the expected starters. This was admittedly a rather crude calculation, and certainly a big injury could once again derail the offense, but there is reason for optimism in spite of a lack of high-OBP additions.

After finishing 15th in the NL in runs scored last season, the Cubs were projected to finish 4th in the NL in runs this year on the latest ZiPS thread, using the average value of the expected starters.

I would be willing to lay down $$$ that the Cubs once again finish in the bottom half of the NL in runs scored....

Any takers?

the Cubs were projected to finish 4th in the NL in runs this year on the latest ZiPS thread, using the average value of the expected starters

This will almost certainly over-estimate how many runs the Cubs actually score because it plays directly into Jim Hendry's second big failing - other than his failure to appreciate OBP - the man is shockingly incapable of constructing a decent major-league bench, especially one that has major-league caliber hitters on it.

the man is shockingly incapable of constructing a decent major-league bench, especially one that has major-league caliber hitters on it.

OK, but he's working really hard to add Matt Murton.

I see some rather strong correlations between OBP/BB numbers and run scored.

You're right of course. The fact that OBP and runs scored are strongly correlated is undeniable, much as a high strikeout rate is often accompanied by a low ERA. However, there is a similarly strong correlation between SLG and runs scored. Using your method of comparing NL team rankings:

2006:
5 teams scored 800+ runs - #1-3,6,8 in OBP; #1-3,5,6 in SLG
1 team scored -700 runs - #14 in OBP; #16 in SLG

2005:
3 teams scored 800+ runs - #1,3,4 in OBP; #1,4,5 in SLG
7 teams scored -700 runs - #6,8,10,12-14,16 in OBP; #7,11-16 in SLG

2004:
6 teams scored 800+ runs - #1-5,7 in OBP; #1,3-7 in SLG
5 teams scored -700 runs - #12-16 in OBP; #11,13-16 in SLG

2003:
4 teams scored 800+ runs - #1-3,7 in OBP; #1-4 in SLG
4 teams scored -700 runs - #8,14-16 in OBP; #13-16 in SLG

A team can build its offense primarily through OBP or SLG with similar results. As these rankings show, it is nearly impossible to be near the top of the league in one of these categories and toward the bottom in overall runs scored. The Cubs should be no higher than middle-of-the-pack in OBP, but if they can be among the top few teams in SLG, the offense should be fine.

I do want to stress that I'm not down on the Soriano signing strictly because he's not a Bonds-esque bat (who is).

Rather, I think it will be a matter of who Soriano replaces in the lineup - I have a strong suspicion it will be Murton, for the most part. I think that's a upgrade offensively, but not by as much were he replacing Pierre. I think the CF will be Pie (who I think will be CP redux).

Kiko mentioned the bench -- even elsewhere.... we're at point where everyone has to be ROOTING for a Izturis injury ('fortunately' - that's a good bet). DeRosa replacing Todd Walker is probably a wash - at best.

As much I worry about the longer term implications of Soriano's 8/136 -- I'm also worried about how well DLee comes back from that wrist injury. He wouldn't be the first player to lose substantial value to an injury to such a critical part of the anatomy (nor, of course, would he conversely be the first to come back at near the same level). I think a fall-off from his 2005 season, everyone takes a given (injury aside, his 177 OPS+ was just soooo much better than any previous season, you'd be nuts not to suspect it as an outlier). But - what if he falls off 10% from this pre-2005 levels? Hindsight is always 20/20 - I know... and for someone as durable as Lee had previously been, the contract was a good deal. But -- that doesn't change the fact a good part of the Cubs' offensive hopes and dreams revolve around him not only coming back healthy, but coming back somewhere near his 2005 level... at least, say... ~150 OPS+.

For a change, the Cubs went out and signed the "best player" available in an offseason FA market... problem is - I think the Cubs were/are not a "best available FA" away from being a good team.

Of course, in their favor -- the NL could well suck as much as last year. The NL Central in particular should be pretty darn weak.

Would a World Series with an '87 Twins-type team (or heck... even a 06 Cardinals type team) be any less sweet? Probably not, I suppsoe.

I think the Cubs were/are not a "best available FA" away from being a good team.

Unless that player had been Babe Ruth, definitely not.

The Cubs are hoping that internal improvements push them over the top:

* Prior comes back, if not in his 2003 form then in 12-15 win, 4.25 ERA form
* Lee comes back and puts up a .950 OPS or so
* Pie comes up and plays well in CF
* Miller comes back from injury and gives them good starts in the back of the rotation
* Wood comes back and pitches in relief like he did during the brief time he tried it earlier
* Hill steps up and shows he can pitch like he did in the 2nd half for a full season

If you look at the players the Cubs are bringing in - Lilly, Marquis, Soriano, Derosa, Ward, Cotts - they're not going to be able to turn this team around alone. There's maybe 10-12 wins there over last year, a big chunk of it from the upgrade that Lilly should be over the 2006 rotation. That gets them to about 75 wins, and the rest is going to have to come from returning players and from whatever bounce they get out of hiring Pinella.

If they get half of the things on that list, they've got a chance at 90 wins. If not, they'll scuffle along around .500 barring some really good luck.

If they get half of the things on that list, they've got a chance at 90 wins. If not, they'll scuffle along around .500 barring some really good luck.

That's kind of what I'm thinking. Here's a realistic 90+ win scenario:

1. Four starting pitchers exceed 180 IP, two over 200.
2. Bullpen falls into line behind that and is competent.
3. Average of 145 starts from Lee, Ramirez and Soriano, all of whom more or less meet or exceed projections.
4. No more than one gaping hole (>1 win below replacement) at any position.