If those numbers are anything close to accurate, the late innings of Cubs games are going to be very exciting - lots of K's, lots of BBs.

From the relievers, that is.

Those OBPs are very worrisome. Only one player makes it to .360.
Does Dusty encourage hacktastic-ness?

Wow. Someone's new here.

Those projections for the offense are better than I was expecting--I like Cedeno's especially (particularly compared to the proj for His Neifiness, Team MVP). That Burnitz projection is fugly. That might be a little bit pessimistic, but even so--if the Cubs pick up that 7.5M option, they're nuts.

Oh, and if Murton gets 470 ABs, I guarantee he hits more than 14 homers.

Does Dusty encourage hacktastic-ness?

Absolutely. This is the man who ran Bellhorn out of town and benched Choi. His favorite quote is, 'Sometimes the first pitch is the best pitch you'll see.'

He even had Matt Lawton, briefly aboard specifically for his OBP, swinging at everything. Jerry Hairston, usually good OBP, notched up a .307 leading-off this year.

Neifi and Jose Macias are Baker's heartthrobs. They never saw a pitch they didn't try to hit to a middle infielder.

Given that ZIPS is based off DIPS, I'm surprised Zambrano's H/IP is so low without getting a K an inning. I know he doesn't give up many HR, but that only accounts for several hits.

If the Cubs sent out this lineup:

C- Barrett
1B- Lee
2B- Hairston/Todd Walker/half decent FA
SS- Cedeno/Furcal (in which case Cedeno could play 2B)
3B- Aramis
OF- Murton, fungible OF, good FA signing

I think they could have a pretty solid offense. Not many great OBPs, but a lot of hits, no one would have an awful OBP, and some nice power. Burnitz is not the answer to any question the Cubs want to ask.

I agree Burnitz might have a pessimistic projection. But he'll be 37 next year, strikes out a ton, and just posted a .322 OBP. He should be a 4th OF at best now.

I know it' ZIPS and all, but if Dempster gets 5 starts there is something far ####### wrong in the stars for 2006.

Given that ZIPS is based off DIPS, I'm surprised Zambrano's H/IP is so low without getting a K an inning. I know he doesn't give up many HR, but that only accounts for several hits.

He gets a ton of groundball outs. Relies on a sinking fastball. (In any event, he's close to a K an inning. Dude throws in the upper 90s consistently, with tons of movement.)

I'm thinking Dempster's projection's based on his having spent most of his career as a starter, including part of last season.

I agree Burnitz might have a pessimistic projection. But he'll be 37 next year, strikes out a ton, and just posted a .322 OBP. He should be a 4th OF at best now.

You did see the part where I said the Cubs would be nuts to pick up his option, right?

Yes. Don't be so defensive. I wasn't calling you an idiot or something.

He gets a ton of groundball outs. Relies on a sinking fastball.

That wouldn't show up in DIPS, would it?

That wouldn't show up in DIPS, would it?

I don't know, but his peripherals have been pretty consistent for the past 3 years. His K rate actually rose a bit last year (though his HRs were up some).

He gets a ton of groundball outs. Relies on a sinking fastball. (In any event, he's close to a K an inning. Dude throws in the upper 90s consistently, with tons of movement.)

I know, of course. But really, aren't groundballs generally supposed to allow more hits than flyballers (HR excepted)? I'm not saying he doesn't have skill at preventing hits, just since the projection is based on DIPS I didn't expect such a low H/IP.

Basically, Zambrano has the awesome combination of high strikeout totals (not RJ-in-his-prime high, but high) and high groundball totals. I think his low hit totals are a testament to those skills, especially given the Cubs' indifferent infield defense.

In other words, Zambrano's a "power groundballer," as opposed to a Greg Maddux-type groundballer. I think there's a difference between those types of pitchers in terms of frequency of hits allowed, though I haven't looked closely at the issue...

Cedeño projects to a .744 OPS, which seems reasonable. It also seems that the Cubs should have a starting shortstop there. Oh well, fat chance of that happening.

Oh, and if Murton gets 470 ABs, I guarantee he hits more than 14 homers.

I think you're right. I can see why 14 were projected, but I think you're right.

Also file under "fat chance of that happening." The 470 AB part, I mean.

I agree Burnitz might have a pessimistic projection. But he'll be 37 next year, strikes out a ton, and just posted a .322 OBP.

I'm sure ZiPS is still seeing signal from 2003 and before. It seems to be a reasonable projection to me.

Some initial thoughts:

- I believe most of the hitter numbers, including Pie, Cedeno, and -- though this hurts -- Patterson.

- ZIPS doesn't believe that Murton's power spike this year was for real. Fair enough, I suppose, though .430 seems a little low.

- ZIPS likes Brandon Sing almost as much as I do. An .800 OPS isn't any great shakes for a first baseman, but it makes for a nice lefty-masher off the bench. Also worth noting that he's projected to have the best walk rate -- by far -- of anyone on the roster. Not bad for a guy who will spend the whole year in Iowa.

- If Angel Guzman gets 9 starts at Wrigley this year, I'll cry warm tears of joy (and yes, I know ZIPS isn't a playing time estimator).

- I'm surprised ZIPS likes Ryu more than Mitre, Nolasco, Hill, and Pinto, the last of whom ZIPS doesn't like much at all. Ryu's the same age as Nolasco and Pinto and had -- to my eye -- worse numbers this year and last.

- This team needs a *big* bat in right field. This should be priority #1 this winter.

- And no, not Jeromy Burnitz.

Prediction contest, if you're game:

1) Who should be the Cubs starting right-fielder on Opening Day 2006?
2) Who will be the Cubs starting right-fielder on Opening Day 2006?

I'll say (1) Brian Giles and (2) Jacque Jones.

OK, Sweet.

1 - Giles 2 - Burnitz

But really, aren't groundballs generally supposed to allow more hits than flyballers (HR excepted)? I'm not saying he doesn't have skill at preventing hits, just since the projection is based on DIPS I didn't expect such a low H/IP.

His high double play rate would negate this to some extent. I don't know if DIPS accounts for this or not.

#1 is unanswerable because we do not yet know what it would take for the Cubs to land Giles. If he's offered a 4yr/$50mil deal, I don't think the Cubs should necessarily match it.

I'll go out on a crazy limb and say that Pie and Patterson BOTH are starting on opening day.

Speaking of Pie, he's featured in today's Ask BA. I agree with Callis's conclusion that Pie needs at least another year in the minors.

---"#1 is unanswerable because we do not yet know what it would take for the Cubs to land Giles. If he's offered a 4yr/$50mil deal, I don't think the Cubs should necessarily match it."

Why say it in so soft a manner? Why not say the obvious apparent truth--Giles is too old for a huge contract. So no matter how much money the Cubs seem to have, they will acquire an albatross if they sign him to more than a 2 yr deal, and their future moves will be restricted.

I like Murton's projection. His translated stats for 2005, MLE + his time in the bigs, is this:

.304 - 13 HR - 487 AB .360/.444

He may hit more homers, but it would mean another power spike for 2006 - he's not there yet.

Perez# ss .259/.288/.353, 140 games, 482 ABs

By the time this happens, I'll long since have switched to the Devil Rays.

The Cubs should call for Pie now while he is still hot.</witty pun>

I think the really impressive part is the 400+ starts the Chicago staff will rack up in 2006.

Why not say the obvious apparent truth--Giles is too old for a huge contract. So no matter how much money the Cubs seem to have, they will acquire an albatross if they sign him to more than a 2 yr deal, and their future moves will be restricted.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Of course there is some price and contract term beyond which Giles becomes a categorically bad signing, but the utility function varies among teams. The Cubs seem to be beginning the downside of their "success" cycle, with their core talent signed for one or two more years at most. At that point (i.e., Years 3 and 4), and assuming a change in manager, the Cubs will likely have several positions filled by players at or around the league minimum. I don't foresee Giles's salary significantly restricting the team's moves at that point.

The Cubs seem to have between $20-30 million to spend this offseason. They desperately need a slugging outfielder. They really don't *need* anything else, although of course they could upgrade in any number of places. Giles is clearly the best FA on the market. Here are his WARP3s since coming over to the NL seven years ago:

9.2
10.3
8.7
11.6
8.3
6.2 (first year in PETCO)
8.7

Even with a subpar (for him) 2004, that's a weighted three-year average of 7.8. (If you're curious, that's exactly what Vlad Guerrero has posted since his breakout year in 1998.)

For a team with the payroll and playoff aspirations of the Cubs, it's perfectly reasonable to pay $2 - 2.5 million per marginal win. I would happily sign Giles to a three-year deal at up to $15 million per, and would consider a fourth year triggered by performance and playing time. This might be more than other teams should be willing to pay, but that fact alone wouldn't necessarily make it a bad deal for the Cubs.

So can we all agree with the converse: "The first pitcher is never the best pitch you'll see"?

Those projections look pretty good. What does Cedeno look like on defense? Is he going to help the pitching staff or hurt it?

I think with a good off-season the Cubs can be right on track for the playoffs next year. What would you folks think about Manny? Would his contract be worthwhile for you?

----". I would happily sign Giles to a three-year deal at up to $15 million per.."

Despite his VORPS over the last few years, I would be very reluctant to go beyond 2 years for a player his age.

Despite his VORPS over the last few years, I would be very reluctant to go beyond 2 years for a player his age.

I actually think the Cubs have the potential to be pretty good, and if Giles can get them over the hump, they may have to swallow hard and do it. Worry about 2008 in 2007.

I think the really impressive part is the 400+ starts the Chicago staff will rack up in 2006.

Urge...to kill...rising.

I think the really impressive part is the 400+ starts the Chicago staff will rack up in 2006.

Urge...to kill...rising.

You'll be explaining this forever, Dan. Somewhere I suppose is an explanation of what ZiPS is and is not, that's probably useful to link as new people are exposed to it.

Despite his VORPS over the last few years, I would be very reluctant to go beyond 2 years for a player his age.

I'd happily go three for Giles. The Cubs desperately need a player like Giles in their lineup. His counting stats are down because of his ballpark, and his adjusted stats have been steady as a rock for years.

A three year commitment covers ages 35-37. It looks to me like Giles is likely to maintain his current level over that time, more or less. Ages 38 and 39 are more of a concern, but I wouldn't be horrified if the Cubs signed him for four years. It would be the kind of move the Cubs have always make historically, but I'd rather see them do it with someone like Giles than someone like Moises Alou (although Alou had his best year in the last year of his deal, go figure).

At first I was thinking it would be better to get Furcal and forget Giles, but now I'm not so sure. In terms of pure offensive impact, Giles is the better hitter, but Furcal is at a good FA age, he's a good fit to Baker's approach and he's also well above average for his position. However, the Cubs have much worse alternatives in the OF than they do at SS. I'm officially writing off Cedeño, but I think the difference between Furcal and, say, Neifi is not as great as the difference between Giles and whatever Hendry can fashion out of Silly Putty and Scotch tape.

Five years would be too much, but I say Hendry should go for it.

I don't foresee Giles's salary significantly restricting the team's moves at that point.

It might. The latter years of the Sosa contract kept us out of the big free agent runs over the past few years (Vlad, Beltran, Pedro, Sheff, etc.). I've got no idea who'll be available over the next two or three seasons, but there is bound to be someone.

This doesn't mean we should horde cash until Miguel Cabrera shows up on the market, but I'd rather see the Cubs try and pay a premium to limit the contract to two years.

Furcal would be pretty nice. A Walker/Cedeno platoon at 2B strikes me as effective. It would help allieve Dusty's fear of youngsters while letting us see if Cedeno is going to be a useful major leaguer.

A Walker/Cedeno platoon at 2B strikes me as effective. It would help allieve Dusty's fear of youngsters while letting us see if Cedeno is going to be a useful major leaguer.

A Walker/Cedeno platoon is the same thing as Walker getting the starting job - as soon as Cedeno has a 3-for-15 week or Walker gets 3 hits in a game, bye bye platoon.

A Walker/Cedeno platoon is the same thing as Walker getting the starting job - as soon as Cedeno has a 3-for-15 week or Walker gets 3 hits in a game, bye bye platoon.

I disagree. Baker doesn't need a poor performance from the young guy or a good performance from the old guy to justify giving the full-time job to the old guy.

Also, it's unlikely to play out that way. A Walker/Cedeño platoon isn't going to turn into Walker getting the job full time. It's going to turn into Neifi Perez getting the job full-time.

The latter years of the Sosa contract kept us out of the big free agent runs over the past few years (Vlad, Beltran, Pedro, Sheff, etc.).

Fair enough, which is why I wouldn't go beyond a certain price or certain length on Giles. My only point was that that price and length might appropriately be higher for the Cubs than for most other teams.

Red Sox win for first time since 1918. Even spookier, is the White Sox winning for first time since 1917. Guess whose turn it is??? I pray it's the Cubbies, and not the Red Sox again--the team that won in 1916!

Furcal is at a good FA age, he's a good fit to Baker's approach meaning Baker's approach of "to heck with plate discipline, swing the damn bat!!"
I like Furcal, a lot, but getting Giles would be good for this Cubs team. I'd suggest bringing him in a the hitting instructor / manager also so maybe a few of these Hacking Mass superstars would pick up the idea of getting on base once in a while...

Look at the NL; if the Cubs signed Giles, they'd immediately be the wild-card favorites, maybe divisional favorites with the Cardinals sure to decline, and especially if Roger Clemens retires. Now that the Dodgers aren't going to get any better, the Cubs' wild card prospects are very bright. Wouldn't a year or two of Chicago playoff revenue pay for for a bad year of the contract?

The Felix Pie projection is similar to the Rallymonkey projection, he's a good prospect but probably not quite ready yet. I wanted to check this since I just got the Bill James handbook, that book projects him at .294/.336/.538!

Probably the wildest one they have, or second to Ryan Howard.

Howard projects at a ridiculous .322/.397/.628, 44 homers, 127 RBI. Not quite as good as Pujols, but better than Derek Lee, all while challenging Adam Dunn for the lead with 173 strikeouts.