If he gets 11 million a year, I hope it is not on the North side. For that kind of money, I would want someone that has more of a bat.

The notion of Juan Pierre being worth $11MM a year is so ludicrous as to defy description. Jesus H Christ on a pogo stick.

Although, if the Cubs do this, it'd be an almost perfectly thorough minimization of resources:

Take Corey Patterson, a player with major flaws but also some strengths and some potential who's not yet FA eligible, and drive his trade value into the crapper, such that he fetches 2 low-A players from a bad organization in return;

Having determined Patterson's worthless, overvalue Juan Pierre (who makes several times Patterson's salary) to the point of trading 3 pitching prospects for him;

Watch Patterson outperform Pierre for the majority of the season to this point;

When Pierre finally starts getting it together in the last 2 months of his option year, extend him at a rate roughly twice what he's already being (over)paid.


Wow. It's kind of perfectly beautiful, in a tragicomic sort of way.

Oh. My. God. I can hardly believe I was ever optimistic, even enthusiastic, about this team. A once promising future, and now the organization is being run so far into the ground it's making 10 foot high furrows.

Oh yes, please.

I don't think anyone is going to pay Pierre $11 million/yr. Sullivan has a way of pulling stuff like this out of his alimentary canal. From the viewpoint of other organizations, he not only had another off year, but he's got Cub Cooties. Hendry might pay him $8-9 million/yr, which of course is far more than he's worth. He will likely have a high SB total, but his BA is in the .270s and he's not going to get anywhere near 100 runs.

I've seen other reports suggesting that Pierre could get 4/$36M or thereabouts on the free agent market. The Cubs should probably have to pay a premium above that to get him to forego his chance to shop himself around (not to mention that he's not exactly agreeing to come back to a great situation - this isn't like resigning with a perennial winner, or a team on the rise).

I don't think $10-11M/yr is out of the realm of possibility. If they pay him $40M+ to come back, we're doomed to noncontention for the rest of the decade.

Hendry might pay him $8-9 million/yr, which of course is far more than he's worth.

I tend to agree that $11 million seems a bit on the high side. Who else with money even needs a centerfielder this offseason? The Cubs should be able to get Pierre if they want him - not that they should want him, of course, and because they're the Cubs they're still liable to out-bid themselves for his services and end up overpaying him. I'm actually more worried about how many years they sign him for than how much money. If he gets even 3 years, he's almost surely going to be worthless by the end of his contract and he and Jones would combine to effectively block the Cubs' best position-player prospect for at least 2 more years - not that I expect great things from Pie (he's a Cubs prospect, after all), but it'd be nice to have some kind of long-range (or even medium-range) plan to work your prospects into the lineup.

I think Hendry is going to feel like he has to overpay for him. Look at how Nolasco has turned out; that's definitely going to enter into the decision process. Besides, if Pierre leaves, that opens *two* positions on the Cubs: CF and leadoff hitter.

If he gets even 3 years, he's almost surely going to be worthless by the end of his contract

There's no way in hell he's signing less than a 3 year deal.

"Who else with money even needs a centerfielder this offseason?"

The Pirates need to get from the mid-teens in '07 payroll to around $40M, and Pierre is exactly the kind of crappy vet they love to inflict on the helpless fans of Pittsburgh. If Chris Duffy fails in his last shot at the job this fall, I could easily see DL chasing Pierre as the big free-agent acquisition.

Does it go without saying that the rest of the Junior Varsity Central hopes the Cubs re-sign Pierre.

I tend to agree that $11 million seems a bit on the high side.

I tend to agree that Hitler was a bit of a rude fellow.

I was joking last week when I said that the Cubs would do something stupid like "throwing 3/yrs, $27 mil at Pierre. Oh how wrong I was.

I wonder what they will have to do to keep A-Ram? Extend him an additional 2 yrs/ 30 mil over what he's already due?

There's no way in hell he's signing less than a 3 year deal.

I agree. Which means there's no way in hell he won't be an overpaid albatross in the last year of his contract.

I tend to agree that $11 million seems a bit on the high side.

I tend to agree that Hitler was a bit of a rude fellow.

I meant that I thought $11 million was more than Pierre was likely to actually get. Obviously, $11 million is vastly more than Pierre has probably ever been worth.

I don't think anyone is going to pay Pierre $11 million/yr. . . . Hendry might pay him $8-9 million/yr, which of course is far more than he's worth.

I agree that no one -- other than maybe Hendry -- will pay Pierre $11mm/yr. The major flaw that the Chicago media and Hendry have consistently held is their belief that "leadoff batter" is a position, which means they can equate Furcal (himself overpaid) to Pierre.

That said, even if Hendry paid him the $8mm Andere suggests (which I *don't* want), it won't be all that far from his true value. His unadjusted stats this season closely resemble Mark Kotsay's, who is set to earn $15mm over the next two seasons without Pierre's SB totals. For that matter, the Giants are paying the carcass of Steve Finley $7mm this season and next.

Of course, I would fully expect Hendry to pay give him the 3yr/$27mm contract Roy Hobbs suggests (if not greater), but that's another issue.

I also agree with Moses that Hendry is going to have every incentive to try to bring Pierre back, considering the price he already paid to get him.

Does it go without saying that the rest of the Junior Varsity Central hopes the Cubs re-sign Pierre.

I'd rather see them corey-patterson Felix Pie.

Don't hear too much about Corey these days do you? I guess having a two month crater in the middle of your season will do that that. So far Corey is having a typical Corey season. Have a month or two of good ball to get everybodies hopes and then throw in 3 or more horrible months in their to get everybody back to reality.

That said, Corey's season numbers (.284/.319/.418) are a bit better than Pierre's (.276/.323/.373), his VORP is nearly twice as good (17.8 to 9.3), and we wouldn't have had to pay three pitching prospects to keep him.

He's even played better defense, at least acording to BPro's Rate stat (giving him a 104-99 edge), Range Factors (2.98 to 2.43 for Pierre), and Zone Rating (.920 to Pierre's .907).

I tend to agree that $11 million seems a bit on the high side.

I tend to agree that Hitler was a bit of a rude fellow.

Jeff K., that is some quality snark. I nominate you for a Snarkey.

Don't hear too much about Corey these days do you? I guess having a two month crater in the middle of your season will do that that. So far Corey is having a typical Corey season. Have a month or two of good ball to get everybodies hopes and then throw in 3 or more horrible months in their to get everybody back to reality.

If a "typical Corey season" is .284/.319/.418 with 44 net steals (projected) and Gold-glove-caliber defense (at the All-Star Break, Dial had him as the second-best CF in the AL, just a smidge behind Vernon Wells), then I guess I'll take it, particularly if it doesn't come at the cost of three good pitching prospects or a $10 million/year contract.

W/r/t Pie, although I don't really expect him to be a star, it's worth noting that he seems to be a little bit ahead of Patterson's development curve at this point. Pie's putting up a respectable, if not eye-popping, .756 OPS in AAA at age 21. At that age, Corey was putting up a similarly solid but not eye-popping season at AA.

The Pierre trade had the (further) devious consequence of leaving the team with three unsavory options this offseason: (1) resign Pierre; (2) rush Pie to the majors; or (3) use a stop gap (Pagan?) until Pie's ready. It's a tough call. If Pie can really handle CF, I'd prefer either (2) or (3). But if his glove isn't all that's been advertised, and he's going to end up in a corner OF spot anyway, then (1) is a more defensible option, though it never should have come to that in the first place.

The White Sox already have Juan Pierre. His name is Scott Podsednik.

"The White Sox already have Juan Pierre. His name is Scott Podsednik."

I'm not sure that's a fair assessment. Pierre is a legit CF, and Podsednik's too disinterested in the field to really play anywhere.

I don't understand that guy...

I'm not sure that's a fair assessment. Pierre is a legit CF, and Podsednik's too disinterested in the field to really play anywhere.

Also, Podsednik will take a pitch now and then. Pierre's probably a better base stealer at this point.

Neither player is worth anything close to $11M. Heck, they're not worth half that.

I'm thinking the Tribune is floating that number so it'll seem like a "bargain" when they sign him for $8.5M.

The Pierre trade had the (further) devious consequence of leaving the team with three unsavory options this offseason: (1) resign Pierre; (2) rush Pie to the majors; or (3) use a stop gap (Pagan?) until Pie's ready

I'd love to see the team try that last option. Just because we did something stupid like giving up the pitchers for Pierre doesn't mean the right solution is to compound the problem by doing another stupid thing in hopes of mitigating the first stupid thing.

I can't imagine they'll be able to make enough moves to be serious contenders next year - just getting back to .500 for the first time in 3 seasons would be a good accomplishment. So just accept that and don't block the prospect you've labeled "no trade" for the last few years by doling out megamillions for a guy like Pierre. Pie may fail, or he may succeed - but you never find that out if he comes up and plays bench jockey and platoon partner to guys like Pierre and Jones the next few years. If you're not sure he'll be ready in 2007 - but it's hard to imagine he's not ready by 2008 - then sign a one-year replacement.

Honestly, if I thought Pierre would take a one-year contract, I wouldn't mind seeing the Cubs resign him. Let Pie start 2007 in AAA and if it looks like he's ready to come up, then deal Pierre before the trading deadline. But the likelihood of that happening is basically zero.

But the likelihood of that happening is basically zero.

yup

You guys are a lot more optimistic than I am...

don't block the prospect you've labeled "no trade" for the last few years by doling out megamillions for a guy like Pierre

Any chance that he (or Pierre) would be moved to a corner spot? It's not like the team is swimming in quality outfielders.

Any chance that he (or Pierre) would be moved to a corner spot?

Pie was described as playing a ML quality centerfield by BPro a year or two ago. He doesn't really hit well enough to be much in a corner. Sticking both these guys in the outfield is probably not a very good use of Chicago's resources.

I can't imagine they'll be able to make enough moves to be serious contenders next year

I don't know . . . the NL Central will almost certainly be the weakest division in baseball next year. The Cards and Stros will be a year older, the Brewers haven't taken the step forward this year everyone expected them to, the Reds have mortgaged the future for this year, the Pirates are the Pirates. I can imagine any of the the following happening next year, not all of which would be necessary to put the Cubs in contention:

1. Baker and coaches are fired
2. Prior returns to health and 2005 form
3. Zambrano continues to pitch well
4. Cubs sign decent FA starter, sensibly fill back end with improved youngsters
5. Ramirez returns, puts up decent numbers
6. Cedeno learns 2B, takes a step forward offensively
7. Lee stays healthy, puts up decent numbers
8. Barrett doesn't regress too much, puts up decent numbers
9. New manager sensibly platoon Jones/Murton in RF
10. Cubs sign decent FA left fielder (Soriano or Lee, I suppose) who produces (in first year, at least)

Other good (and bad) things could happen, of course, and not each of these would need to happen for the Cubs to contend -- in the NL Central. (Any optimism I have about the team's chances in this regard are entirely a function of the weak condition of the competition.)

OK, so it's still a long-shot, but I don't think it's out of the question. Of course, this doesn't mean that resigning Pierre to more than a one-year deal is a good idea. I'd consider giving Pie a shot, but I'd prefer to go with someone like Pagan.

Pierre at $11MM/yr is beyond stupid, as is a four year contract. Even for the Cubs.

OK, so it's still a long-shot, but I don't think it's out of the question.

That's a long list, and I think pretty much all of them would have to happen for the Cubs to win 90 games (especially if you really meant 2005 Prior and not 2003 Prior). Now maybe it will take only 85 wins to take the Central next year (though I doubt that - St. Louis for their problems this year is still a decent team, and their management has shown that they understand the team's weak spots and how to fill them, so I don't suspect they'll have the same pitching problems next year that they've had this year), so 90 is good enough.

I hate (9), BTW. Murton's finally starting to hit (perhaps because some of the "work" that the Cubs' staff did with him earlier this year is finally getting flushed out of his system) and show that maybe last year wasn't just a big fluke. It's really easy for teams to give a young guy a couple of months of off-and-on play (which is really what it's been since about 6/1), decide he can't cut it, and push him into a platoon/bench role for the rest of his career. You make him part of a RF platoon and you can kiss any hopes of a productive career goodbye. I don't know about you, but I'm really tired of yearly stopgap overpaid FA signings all over the field.

If they can get a real impact player - not a "decent" FA - that's one thing. But pushing Murton aside for another version of Jones would just make my blood boil.

I agree with UCCF here. Even if everything in #29 falls in line, you get a <50% chance to maybe sneak into the playoffs as the worst playoff team with a minimal shot at the World Series and a team poised to regress in 2008.

The Cubs should make a World Championship their goal, not a chance to back into the playoffs, and their best bet in that regard is to set themselves up to be legitimate contenders in 2008 or 2009. Let Murton play left field again. Even if he flops, there will probably be better options next offseason than Soriano or Lee, neither of whom excite me very much. Fill the damn rotation with kids - Zambrano, Prior, Williams, Marshall, Hill, with Guzman, Marmol, and Ryu in reserve. Again, maybe a bunch of them flop, but so what - fill the holes next offseason. I'd throw Pie out there in center field and see what we have.

Hell, I bet that team would be better than this year's team anyway, especially if they fire Dusty and his coaching circus and replace them with guys who are good with young players and can instill some plate discipline.

That said, #29 is exactly Hendry's thinking - except that he thinks Dusty's the guy to lead the Cubs to the promised land. Dusty's our guy for at least two more years. I hate it, but that's my prediction.

The Pierre trade had the (further) devious consequence of leaving the team with three unsavory options this offseason: (1) resign Pierre; (2) rush Pie to the majors; or (3) use a stop gap (Pagan?) until Pie's ready

--I'd love to see the team try that last option. Just because we did something stupid like giving up the pitchers for Pierre doesn't mean the right solution is to compound the problem by doing another stupid thing in hopes of mitigating the first stupid thing.

I agree, but I don't believe the Cubs recognize that that the Pierre trade was "the first stupid thing." To the contrary, I don't believe that the Cubs think it was stupid at all; they probably believe that they paid a fair (but high) price for Pierre and that the first few months of this season were just bad luck.

Thus, signing him for 2-3 more years won't be stupid either, in their eyes, because of course he will continue to play like he has since June and we'll never see months like April and May ever again.

After all, it worked for Derrek Lee . . . and where is Hee Seop Choi playing now anyway?

BTW, it would not stun me to see the Cubs deal Pie this winter, now that his value has dropped. What they'll trade him for is anyone's guess.

Just because he's not a three-true outcomes player is no reason to underrate Pierre. Yes, a lot of his value is tied up in his batting average - so what? Is there some bizarre reverse-DIPS hypothesis that BABIP for hitters is just luck? Because it ain't.

The question is not "should the Cubs sign Pierre" - because of course he's worth a roster spot and the minimum salary. The question is "how much, and for how long?" DjF's basically the only person to attempt to answer the question (although, incidentally, Finley is not under contract to the Giants next year). And I tend to agree with his valuation - somewhere from $6 to 8 million a year seems fair. As a matter of fact, if the Cubs got him for 3/21 I'd say that's very good business by Hendry. 3/27 wouldn't be good value, but it wouldn't be disastrous. I think the fundamental way of looking at value in a contract is this - can you trade the player in a year or two? And at worst the Cubs would be able to dump Pierre to a contender in 18 months without paying freight.

What's more, the concerns about "blocking" Pie by signing a player for more than a year don't make much sense to me. If you do sign Pierre, then decide in twelve months time that Pie is ready, you can just trade Pierre - provided his contract is OK.

I think Pierre is just a scapegoat here because he is the emblem of the Cubs hitting style - but that's not his fault, and that doesn't mean he's not a valuable player. Some of the posters here are as bad as Cub management in their myopia.

Yes, a lot of his value is tied up in his batting average - so what?

The problem is that Pierre needs to hit .300 in order to be a valuable ballplayer. He's certainly capable of hitting .300, but he's not exactly a model of offensive consistency.

Pierre has 2.2 WARP1 so far this year (pro-rating it gets him to about 3.0 at the end) and has averaged about 3.7 since he became a full timer.

Just because he's not a three-true outcomes player is no reason to underrate Pierre. Yes, a lot of his value is tied up in his batting average - so what? Is there some bizarre reverse-DIPS hypothesis that BABIP for hitters is just luck? Because it ain't.

Pierre´s value is, as I see it, almost completely tied to his speed. Not only because of his steals, but because the AVG you note is boosted by beating out infield grounders. And speed freaks don´t last long in the league.

His BABIP has gone down to the .290 range (career mark: .320), and his infield hit rate has been decreasing since 2003. To me, this could indicate the beginning of his decline (maybe it´s a Wrigley effect too), the Cubs fans here will surely know more about this than I do.

In any case, if he can take a one-year deal to be the aforementioned stopgap, I´d probably do it.

The problem is that Pierre needs to hit .300 in order to be a valuable ballplayer.

His lack of any power also makes him relatively less valuable to a team in a better hitting environment, IMO.

His lack of any power also makes him relatively less valuable to a team in a better hitting environment, IMO.

If you go to BB-Ref and check out his most-similar, you get a bunch of guys, most of whom played before WWII, and all of whom had much better OPS+ numbers than Pierre. For sluggers in today's game, you tend to get just the opposite - guys' "most-similar" hitters tend to be either contemporaries or better players from lower-offense eras.

Also, not that this necessarily means much, but Pierre's top 10 similars played an average of another 5 years past age 27 (Pierre in 2005) and their OPS+ went from 106 thru age 27 (Pierre's OPS+ was 87) down 12 points to 94 thereafter. If Pierre's OPS+ goes down 12 points, he'd be at 75, which is a smidge worse than Neifi Perez's 2005 season (OPS+ of 77).

Just because he's not a three-true outcomes player is no reason to underrate Pierre. Yes, a lot of his value is tied up in his batting average - so what? Is there some bizarre reverse-DIPS hypothesis that BABIP for hitters is just luck? Because it ain't.

BA can be a volatile stat for hitters, but even if you ignore that, Pierre has hit in the .270s for the last couple of years now.

The question is not "should the Cubs sign Pierre" - because of course he's worth a roster spot and the minimum salary. The question is "how much, and for how long?"

Nice phony argument. I don't remember anyone saying "Pierre is useless - just cut him loose already." How much and how long is the question on everyone's mind - and if it's too much and for too long, then they need to let him go.

That said, #29 is exactly Hendry's thinking

Ouch. Them's fighting words.

Listen, I don't want them to re-sign Pierre either, unless perhaps as a one-year stop-gap. Nor, in an ideal world, would I want them to platoon Murton with Jones. But we have to face reality -- the Trib isn't going to blow up the team and start from scratch, which means that Jones, among others, is here to stay. Plus, as much as I hope Murton succeeds, I don't think a sub-20 HR guy is necessarily a good fit for LF in a lineup that's already bereft of power at SS, 2B, and CF. It's a close call for me, but I think I'd prefer to see a legitimate slugger in LF and Murton cutting into Jones' playing time for the next two years in RF than Murton full-time in LF, Jones full-time in RF, and the Cubs struggling to score 700 runs. I just don't think lineup will cut it:

Pierre
Izturis
Lee
Ramirez (if we're lucky)
Jones
Barrett (2/3 of the time)
Murton
Cedeno

My preference only holds, however, if the Cubs go out and get a legitimate big bat for LF. (I think this means Soriano or a trade, since C. Lee is pretty borderline.) If, on the other hand, the Cubs go out and sign a Jonesque free agent LFer (oh, I don't know, maybe . . . Shannon Stewart?), my blood will be boiling in the same pot as UCCF's.

TwoAlous, it's true that Pierre probably isn't as devoid of value as many of us claim. But now that the Cubs have apparently committed to automatic outs at SS and below-average OF at 2B, it sure would be nice to have an offensive out-performer in CF. Hard to come by, I know, and maybe a below-market contract for Pierre would allow the team to splurge elsewhere, but Hendry doesn't do discount, and if the choice is Pierre at 3 and 30 or no Pierre, I'll take no Pierre every time.

Just because he's not a three-true outcomes player is no reason to underrate Pierre. Yes, a lot of his value is tied up in his batting average - so what? Is there some bizarre reverse-DIPS hypothesis that BABIP for hitters is just luck?

As Andere hinted, aren't there studies indicating how variable a stat like BA is, compared to other offense skills (such as those measured by SEC, ISO, etc.)? Do these apply to BABIP as well?

I mean, let's look at three hypothetical guys, playing the same position equally well and having the same age, past years, plate appearances, ballpark, era, etc.:

Player A -- .310/.360/.400
Player B -- .280/.360/.400

Why do we assume that Player B is nearly as valuable as Player A, if not more so?

Why do we assume that Player B is nearly as valuable as Player A, if not more so?

Higher isolated power

Jeff K., that is some quality snark. I nominate you for a Snarkey.

I takes my praise where I can gets it.

Higher isolated power

That's my point -- is ISO (or SEC, which Player B also has), less variable than BABIP?

Hey, I just see Hendry following Omar in looking to lock the youngsters up. I'm guessing he discussed it with Dusty.

That's my point -- is ISO (or SEC, which Player B also has), less variable than BABIP?

Oh, I gotcha. I want to say that it is more stable but that's based on some vague memory of a BPro article. I don't have a subscription anymore so I can't help you with that one.

I can tell you that PECOTA pegged him with 13% breakout; 35% improve; 17% collapse; and 2% attrition this past offseason. That looks like a pretty small spread to me. Keep in mind that those are in reference to his performance aggregated over the past three seasons (2003 - 2005) where the average WARP1 was 3.9.

Keep in mind that those are in reference to his performance aggregated over the past three seasons (2003 - 2005) where the average WARP1 was 3.9.

Hmmmm, I thought that was how it worked but just looking at it, the optimistic improvement number does not seem to fit his 2006 projection in relation to the three year average - which was much better than his 13 VORP projection.

I'm thinking the Tribune is floating that number so it'll seem like a "bargain" when they sign him for $8.5M.

I would be comfortable with 3 years for a total of $8.5M.