Here are more questions culled from the mailbag.
Merril V.T. writes: Do you think the Cubs will be better off trading Sammy Sosa and
letting Matt Stairs play right field, and work with a platoon system of Julio Zuleta-Ross Gload
while getting some more prospects out of the trade? Or is it wiser to let Sosa play out his contract and allow their top prospects to develop a little more?
Well, in the first place, if I were running the Cubs, I probably wouldn't have picked up Stairs to play first base. Witness:
|
Player
|
BA
|
OBP
|
SLG
|
|
Stairs, 2001 STATS Proj.
|
.259
|
.356
|
.486
|
|
Stairs, 2001 Shandler Proj.
|
.235
|
.335
|
.425
|
|
Zuleta, 2000 MLE
|
.286
|
.330
|
.519
|
|
Gload, 2000 MLE
|
.274
|
.312
|
.493
|
Projections are from STATS, Inc., and Ron Shandler's excellent Baseball Forecaster. MLEs are courtesy of STATS, Inc.
Stairs had a bad year in 2000 and is getting old. STATS believes he will rebound somewhat in '01, while Shandler projects continued decline. If we split the difference between the two projections, we get something like .346 OBP and .456 SLG.
If you believe in the MLE method, and I do, then it's pretty clear that a Zuleta and Gload combo, while not outstanding, could very well meet or exceed what Stairs should do this year. They are certainly capable of holding down the fort for a year until Hee Seop Choi is ready. When you add in salary considerations, lots o'bucks for Stairs and minimum wage for the rookie platoon, the Stairs decision looks even more questionable.
Of course, the Cubs would counter that both Zuleta and Gload are unproven at the major-league level, and that they need another experienced power bat to protect Sammy in the lineup. The irony here is that a few years ago, Stairs himself was an "unproven" player, struggling to find a place to play. His minor-league numbers said he could hit, but he had to get lucky to find a spot in a lineup, and stay hot long enough to convince the skeptics. Zuleta and Gload are in the same position now.
As for Sammy, it's becoming fashionable to deride him as a "one-dimensional" player. I think that's ludicrous. He had the best OPS of his career last year. I would hang onto him if I could if I were the Cubs, while easing into the new era with my strong minor-league system.
Ian G. writes: One thing that is really bugging me about my beloved Milwaukee Brewers is, how is it that they let Kelly Wunsch go without even giving him a shot in the bigs? The guy gets picked up by the ChiSox, makes the club out of spring training, and ends up leading the AL in appearances.
Wunsch's career in the Milwaukee system was very erratic, punctuated by arm trouble. A year ago, he looked like a mediocre Triple-A pitcher, so there wasn't any particular reason for the Brewers to hang onto him. I think it's more productive to praise the White Sox for getting something out of him, rather than condemning the Brewers for letting him go. Pitchers, after all, are unpredictable, and Wunsch is just example No. 587,990,324,072 of that principle.
Mike S. writes: If you had to choose between Adam Dunn and Austin
Kearns, both outfield prospects for the Reds, which one would you pick and why.
Well, that's like asking me if I would rather go on a date with Faith Hill or Drew Barrymore. Assuming my wife would agree to let me do so, I would have a difficult time choosing. I find both to be magnetically beautiful women, but in different ways.
Kearns is more polished now, but Dunn probably has a slightly higher ceiling. Both have power, draw walks, and play good defense. Both are young. Today I'd pick Kearns, but yesterday I might have picked Dunn, and so might I tomorrow.
As for Faith and Drew, I'd have to think about that one some more.
Richard C. writes: Do you have any hobbies besides baseball?
When I was a graduate student, history was my job and baseball was my hobby. Now, baseball is my job and history is my hobby, specifically military history and biography. I also play wargames, dabble in science fiction writing, have an active interest in politics, and enjoy many kinds of music.
J. J. writes: I'm curious. How do you figure that Eric Owens "has a better chance of hitting .273 than .290." He had an outstanding rookie season, much better than expected. Glad to see you're so optimistic about the kid's future. Loser.
First of all, Owens wasn't a rookie in 2000. His rookie season was 1996, when he hit .200 in 88 games for the Reds. Yes, Owens hit .293 last year, but his career average is .265 over 445 games and 1,327 at-bats. He was 29 years old last year, which means he is already at his peak, and thus not really a "kid."
I actually like Owens as a utility player. I have a liking for "scrappy" players like Owens, but I have to be realistic in assessing his chances for 2001. Sure, he might hit .300. But the odds are that he will be pulled closer to his career norms, and is thus a better bet to hit .265-.275 or so.
John Sickels is the author of the STATS 2001 Minor League Scouting Notebook. You can email your questions to him at JASickels@AOL.com.
| |
|
