The 2010 Cubs Free Agent and Roster Moves Thread: SAVEENG OUR KUBBEEZ!!11

[Armchair_QB]

Maybe this will simplify it.

Gary Matthews Jr. sucked in Chicago.

Gary Matthews Jr. didn't suck in Arlington.

Of course I'm not sure he was doing roids when he was in Chicago so that might skew things a little.

That applies to a lot of guys.  Like Mark DeRosa.

Except the part about where he sucked in Chicago.

So really none of it applies to DeRosa.

Maybe he means DeRosa was on roids in Chicago. Otherwise it's another baffling UpChuck.

I didn't know fat chicks were classified as steroids now.

[Oleg]

Inevitable.

According to FOXSports.com, the Cubs are stepping up their pursuit of free agent outfielder Marlon Byrd.

The Cubs will have to look at alternatives now that they lost out on Mike Cameron, who agreed to terms with Boston this week. Byrd, 32, batted .283/.329/.479 with 20 homers, 89 RBI and 43 doubles in '09. If he signs with Chicago, he'll be reunited with his former hitting coach Rudy Jaramillo. It's believed that Cubs will need to shed some payroll -- most likely through a Milton Bradley trade -- before any additional spending takes place.

I'm no statfaggatron, but those are better than Cameron's numbers.  And Byrd's younger.  Is there a faggy stat that confirms me wanting the Cubs to sign Cameron over Byrd?

For one, Byrd played half his games in Arlington.  He's not a bad defender, but Cameron is much better.  And Cameron has been amazingly consistent throughout most of his career, whereas Byrd wasn't very good at all before going to Texas.  If the Cubs don't overpay for him, I'm fine with the signing.  But they probably will, so fuck it, keep Milton.

Byrd hit 14 homers in Arlington last year and 6 on the road. His road OPS+ was still over 100 but it was about 20 points higher at home. He definitely had a career year and his combined OPS+ for the season was 106. That doesn't amaze me. He did have a .380 OBA in 2008 but had 200 less at bats than in 2009.

Look, this team is going to be average no matter how the fatso in charge moves things around. Let's just keep Milton so there's a reason to watch. Also because he's better than all these retarded options I keep hearing about.

Okay, THIS.  But, how does Wrigley compare to Arlington in the "hitter's ballpark" category?

When it comes to park factor, Wrigley's a bit more of a "hitter's park" than Arlington..

RV made the point that it doesn't account for quality of pitching.. However, the Rangers are around 15-20th in the league in pitching.. That would skew their park factor up.. The Cubs pitching is top 5-10. That would skew their park factor downward..

On the flipside of that, the Rangers' semi-poor pitching could have been because their park is a hitter's park in general. I know I'm basically arguing my own point, but they are a couple decent points that I don't fully have the answer to.

I have yet to find (or look) for something that fully incorporates an adequate balance between the two

I think Yeti just explained why quality of pitching is inherently incorporated into park factor.

[Weebs]

Inevitable.

According to FOXSports.com, the Cubs are stepping up their pursuit of free agent outfielder Marlon Byrd.

The Cubs will have to look at alternatives now that they lost out on Mike Cameron, who agreed to terms with Boston this week. Byrd, 32, batted .283/.329/.479 with 20 homers, 89 RBI and 43 doubles in '09. If he signs with Chicago, he'll be reunited with his former hitting coach Rudy Jaramillo. It's believed that Cubs will need to shed some payroll -- most likely through a Milton Bradley trade -- before any additional spending takes place.

I'm no statfaggatron, but those are better than Cameron's numbers.  And Byrd's younger.  Is there a faggy stat that confirms me wanting the Cubs to sign Cameron over Byrd?

For one, Byrd played half his games in Arlington.  He's not a bad defender, but Cameron is much better.  And Cameron has been amazingly consistent throughout most of his career, whereas Byrd wasn't very good at all before going to Texas.  If the Cubs don't overpay for him, I'm fine with the signing.  But they probably will, so fuck it, keep Milton.

Byrd hit 14 homers in Arlington last year and 6 on the road. His road OPS+ was still over 100 but it was about 20 points higher at home. He definitely had a career year and his combined OPS+ for the season was 106. That doesn't amaze me. He did have a .380 OBA in 2008 but had 200 less at bats than in 2009.

Look, this team is going to be average no matter how the fatso in charge moves things around. Let's just keep Milton so there's a reason to watch. Also because he's better than all these retarded options I keep hearing about.

The thing is, the Cubs shouldn't be a simply average team.  Considering the 2009 team had just about the same roster as a 2008 team that was the best in the National League, and now this 2010 team won't be much different, they should still be able to easily take the division, barring another injury-plagued season.  Now, a lot of players had career years in 2008, and we got way more production out of CF than we would have ever expected, but we still had a very bad offensive player in RF (Kosuke) and Derrek Lee wasn't nearly as good as he was last year.  If Soto rebounds, Baker becomes The Next Mark DeRosa, and we either have a Soriano-Fukudome-Bradley or Soriano-Byrd-Fukudome across the outfield, the Cubs should still be a very good team.  While Soriano is clearly regressing, you'd have to assume he'll revert back at least very close to his career norms.  I'm fine with Hendry signing Byrd to a short, affordable contract (though I'd rather keep Milton) and maybe grabbing a back-of-the-rotation starter.  Other than Holliday, the free agents available aren't really worth the money it would take to sign them, although that Cameron signing would have been nice.  I'd love to take a risk on Ben Sheets, but somehow he's asking for $12 million annually, which is just the kind of contract that Jim would like to hand out.

[Eli]

Other than Holliday, the free agents available aren't really worth the money it would take to sign them

I'm nitpicking here, but Holliday definitely won't be worth the money is takes to sign him.

Other than that, I pretty much agree with you.  The Cubs will probably be constructed as a slightly above-average team in 2010, which means they'll likely win somewhere between 78-88 games, depending on all kinds of luck.

In other words, let's see how it plays out.

[Armchair_QB]

Other than Holliday, the free agents available aren't really worth the money it would take to sign them

I'm nitpicking here, but Holliday definitely won't be worth the money is takes to sign him.

Other than that, I pretty much agree with you.  The Cubs will probably be constructed as a slightly above-average team in 2010, which means they'll likely win somewhere between 78-88 games, depending on all kinds of luck.

In other words, let's see how it plays out.

85 wins might be enough to take this suck-tastic division.

[Yeti]

Other than Holliday, the free agents available aren't really worth the money it would take to sign them

I'm nitpicking here, but Holliday definitely won't be worth the money is takes to sign him.

Other than that, I pretty much agree with you.  The Cubs will probably be constructed as a slightly above-average team in 2010, which means they'll likely win somewhere between 78-88 games, depending on all kinds of luck.

In other words, let's see how it plays out.

85 wins might be enough to take this suck-tastic division.

It will be? I'm fairly confident that the Cardinals are probably a 90 win team again (provided they hang on to Holliday)

[Slaky]

Other than Holliday, the free agents available aren't really worth the money it would take to sign them

I'm nitpicking here, but Holliday definitely won't be worth the money is takes to sign him.

Other than that, I pretty much agree with you.  The Cubs will probably be constructed as a slightly above-average team in 2010, which means they'll likely win somewhere between 78-88 games, depending on all kinds of luck.

In other words, let's see how it plays out.

85 wins might be enough to take this suck-tastic division.

It will be? I'm fairly confident that the Cardinals are probably a 90 win team again (provided they hang on to Holliday)

I'm with Yeti on this one. The Cardinals have to be the clear favorites in the division.

[Yeti]

Other than Holliday, the free agents available aren't really worth the money it would take to sign them

I'm nitpicking here, but Holliday definitely won't be worth the money is takes to sign him.

Other than that, I pretty much agree with you.  The Cubs will probably be constructed as a slightly above-average team in 2010, which means they'll likely win somewhere between 78-88 games, depending on all kinds of luck.

In other words, let's see how it plays out.

85 wins might be enough to take this suck-tastic division.

It will be? I'm fairly confident that the Cardinals are probably a 90 win team again (provided they hang on to Holliday)

I'm with Yeti on this one. The Cardinals have to be the clear favorites in the division.

Another "if" would be if Carpenter stays alive. He stayed healthy last year, but you never know when he'll break again. I heard the Cardinals were interested in Chen-Ming Wang.. While it appears he's been bad a couple of years, as much as it pains me to think it, under Duncan, he'd probably shine again.

[R-V]

Coco Crisp anyone? Not as good of a hitter as Byrd, but he's younger, better defensively, and you could probably get him on the cheap for one year. As opposed to Marlon's inevitable 3 year deal. Downside: his shoulder might not work.

Really I'm just throwing shit out there at this point. This offseason is humiliating.

[CT III]

Coco Crisp anyone? Not as good of a hitter as Byrd, but he's younger, better defensively, and you could probably get him on the cheap for one year. As opposed to Marlon's inevitable 3 year deal. Downside: his shoulder might not work.

Really I'm just throwing shit out there at this point. This offseason is humiliating.

I'm looking forward to an awesome outfield experience of Soriano, Scotty Pods and Milton Bradley.  It's going to be legendary.

[BH]

Coco Crisp anyone? Not as good of a hitter as Byrd, but he's younger, better defensively, and you could probably get him on the cheap for one year. As opposed to Marlon's inevitable 3 year deal. Downside: his shoulder might not work.

Really I'm just throwing shit out there at this point. This offseason is humiliating.

I'm looking forward to an awesome outfield experience of Soriano, Scotty Pods and Milton Bradley.  It's going to be legendary.

You are a retard if you don't think all of Hendry's moves this offseason are geared toward trading Milton for a 2B.

[Weebs]

Other than Holliday, the free agents available aren't really worth the money it would take to sign them

I'm nitpicking here, but Holliday definitely won't be worth the money is takes to sign him.

Other than that, I pretty much agree with you.  The Cubs will probably be constructed as a slightly above-average team in 2010, which means they'll likely win somewhere between 78-88 games, depending on all kinds of luck.

In other words, let's see how it plays out.

85 wins might be enough to take this suck-tastic division.

It will be? I'm fairly confident that the Cardinals are probably a 90 win team again (provided they hang on to Holliday)

If they hang on to Holliday, maybe.  But if they don't, they're still not a very good team.  They have Carpenter (health issues) and Wainwright at the top of that rotation, but then nothing of significance behind them.  Add to that has Colby Rasmus and nothing else, and an infield that only has Pujols and Schumaker.  Their offense is going to be terrible unless they keep Holliday, and their pitching staff will only be decent because Dave Duncan can use his magic to turn Sidney Ponson into a Cy Young candidate.

[Waco Kid]

Coco Crisp anyone? Not as good of a hitter as Byrd, but he's younger, better defensively, and you could probably get him on the cheap for one year. As opposed to Marlon's inevitable 3 year deal. Downside: his shoulder might not work.

Really I'm just throwing shit out there at this point. This offseason is humiliating.

I'm looking forward to an awesome outfield experience of Soriano, Scotty Pods and Milton Bradley.  It's going to be legendary.

This would be an absolutely fabulous outfield.

[Slaky]

Other than Holliday, the free agents available aren't really worth the money it would take to sign them

I'm nitpicking here, but Holliday definitely won't be worth the money is takes to sign him.

Other than that, I pretty much agree with you.  The Cubs will probably be constructed as a slightly above-average team in 2010, which means they'll likely win somewhere between 78-88 games, depending on all kinds of luck.

In other words, let's see how it plays out.

85 wins might be enough to take this suck-tastic division.

It will be? I'm fairly confident that the Cardinals are probably a 90 win team again (provided they hang on to Holliday)

If they hang on to Holliday, maybe.  But if they don't, they're still not a very good team.  They have Carpenter (health issues) and Wainwright at the top of that rotation, but then nothing of significance behind them.  Add to that has Colby Rasmus and nothing else, and an infield that only has Pujols and Schumaker.  Their offense is going to be terrible unless they keep Holliday, and their pitching staff will only be decent because Dave Duncan can use his magic to turn Sidney Ponson into a Cy Young candidate.

Oh, only Pujols? Well, forget it then. They suck.

[Powdered Toast Man]

Coco Crisp anyone? Not as good of a hitter as Byrd, but he's younger, better defensively, and you could probably get him on the cheap for one year. As opposed to Marlon's inevitable 3 year deal. Downside: his shoulder might not work.

Really I'm just throwing shit out there at this point. This offseason is humiliating.

Good God.  This season is going to be awful.