Fielder who can't field now Ranger with no range
(h/t to Sam Miller for that headline)
Huge trade, both in landscape and girth, as Detroit swaps Prince Fielder for Ian Kinsler from the Rangers. This is a really interesting trade, and one that I think makes both teams better. First, the outlays:
Detroit gets Ian Kinsler (16/16/14/11/12[5]). They also send $30 million to the Tigers, so you can basically say they are paying Kinsler $92 million for 4 years or $99 million for 5 years. They have a savings of $76 million.
The Rangers get Prince Fielder (24/24/24/24/24/24/24). They also receive $30 million, so you can basically say they are paying Fielder $138 million for 7 years (roughly $19.7 million a year). They take on the extra $76 million.
For this to make sense from the Rangers' perspective, they'd have to get an extra 11-15 WAR from this trade. I think they do; they can move Profar to 2B from LF, as well as upgrading 1B from Mitch Moreland. Also, Fielder's power numbers are going to get a lot better now that he plays in the powder keg at Arlington. For the Tigers, they only have to not lose 11-15 WAR to benefit from this trade. They are going to get 3 wins in the next few years just by moving Cabrera over to 1B from 3B. Kinsler heralds the end of the Infante era in Detroit, but that's a lateral move in my opinion. Castellanos probably moves back to 3B, but I'm skeptical that he can stick there defensively. It'll be interesting to see what the Tigers spend their extra money on, if they spend any of it (you can make the case that Kinsler has an AAV of 23 for the next 4 years, so there is no savings really).
I love trades like this.
Padres grab Johnson
It's a 1 year, $8 million pact. At that price, I'd imagine a lot of teams were sniffing around. You'd need to get 1.1 to 1.6 WAR for that trade to make good, which I don't expect from Johnson; however, the opportunity cost is really, really low. 8 million dollars for one year is nothing, and even if you believe there's a 80% chance he provides you with nothing (and that's my bet), the 20% chance he gives you 3 or more WAR means you could spin him for a really nice rental that every team can afford. He'll move to spacious Petco Field, which can only help his cause.
I'm curious how this impacts Scott Baker's market price. If Johnson is worth $8 million on a flier, surely Baker will get $4 or $5 million, right? I wonder if he's getting priced out of the Cubs' range. In any case, I hope they aggressively re-sign him to a 1 or 2-year deal, because I think there could be a lot of surplus value to be had there (with the same small-ish downside).
Cano paddling upstream
Reports say that Cano and the Yankees are around $120 million apart, or what would have been the 10th highest payroll in baseball this season. I think Cano will settle at 8/200 or so. At 8/170, I'd think long and hard about getting in on that, if I were the Cubs. That's a terrible contract years 6 through 8, but 1 through 5 it's actually pretty good if not very good.
Old posting system Nomo
It will change, and Tanaka will probably be posted next month. I bet it'll be baby steps, and there will be another bigger change to coincide with a new CBA.
Comments
Are we overstating how much the park is going to help Fielder? It’s not like Comerica is PETCO or anything.
sitrickQuote Reply
@ sitrick:
Well, according to Guts!, the HR park factor for lefties at Comerica is 100, so exactly league average. B at A is 110, so we might reasonably expect a 5% increase in Fielder’s overall HR numbers. Using the same methodology we’d expect 3.5% more doubles, and roughly identical singles/triples numbers. All that being said, you’re pretty much right. I think park factors are usually overstated.
MylesQuote Reply
The best part about that trade is that now there gets to be a lot of articles about how Detroit and Texas are doing great jobs at filling holes. How well they filled their holes, how big their holes were, how well each player fills a hole, whether they should be doing even more to fill their holes, what types of moves would best fill their holes.
Plenty of ammo for Ryno. Or Omar. Or Like You Care. Or whatever he decideds to go by. Col. ‘Bat’ Guano, if that really is his name.
EdwinQuote Reply
Berselius wrote:
It’s only strange if you don’t think about the fact that Prince had to live in Detroit for 7 months of the year.
JonKneeVQuote Reply
If the NFL does what it usually does (takes several years to adapt), some team is going to take “undersized” Pitt DT Aaron Donald on Day 2 of the draft and get the next Geno Atkins. So quick off the snap:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C25r8eN44yA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7M1qFydA-0
Like You CareQuote Reply
Edwin wrote:
Like You CareQuote Reply
JonKneeV wrote:
(dying laughing), good point.
BerseliusQuote Reply
Padres DFA Jaff Decker, I’d like to see what that guy can do.
Seems like he can get on base pretty well, aside from hitting the baseball with the bat.
LukasQuote Reply
http://www.rlyw.net/index.php/RLYW/comments/j_teaches_all_some_cool_stuff_former_and_potential_future_yankee_robin
dmick89Quote Reply
how many more years ya think the Cubs will be fighting for a draft spot? http://www.rlyw.net/index.php/RLYW/comments/cairo_2014_v0.2s_extremely_early_and_completely_useless_2013_projected_mlb_
dmick89Quote Reply
IF the Cubs can get Cano for 8/200, go for it. That would be awesome.
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
Agreed.
sitrickQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
At that point, I’m not even worried about overpays, I’d just be so happy that the Cubs added an actual elite player worth watching every game.
EdwinQuote Reply
I believe Melvin when he says the team has no interest in trading Braun, but I’d fucking love the Cubs to acquire him. Not only is he pretty cheap, he’s damn good and it would piss a lot of Cubs fans off. win win win
dmick89Quote Reply
@ Edwin:
8/200 is pretty cheap for him. I’m not at all concerned about what looks like at the end. Can’t look at the end without looking at the early year benefits. Only way you’re getting a good player on free agency is if you get those benefits early and it looks “bad” later on.
Those early years allow you to sign other players for the money he’d otherwise be making. That’s huge.
Only other option is to get avoid free agents or get lucky.
dmick89Quote Reply
Cano at 2nd, Braun in left, Barney either a backup at SS or give him some time at 3rd. Go after Tanaka and there you go. Cubs are good again. Especially if Castro remembers how to play baseball.
dmick89Quote Reply
If Castro doesn’t remember how to play, you can maybe see if Barney could be any good there. Not that he’d be very good, but he could end up being better than last year’s version of Castro.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ dmick89:
It would be great. When was the last time the Cubs had a position player that you were actually excited to watch hit? And not just a “I’m excited to see how Prospect X does”, a legit “this guy is a fun hitter to watch”.
EdwinQuote Reply
@ Edwin:
Sosa from about 1995 through 2004. I was glad the Cubs had Ramirez and Lee, but they weren’t as explosive as Sosa could be at the plate. Lee had those two great years and that was awesome, but definitely the last was Sosa. You had to watch Cubs games then to see him play. Good times.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ dmick89:
I was talking up Cano on BN yesterday for 8/200. I think he gets more than that, but it’s strange how absolutely shell-shocked Cubs fans are about ever spending money on anybody.
EdwinQuote Reply
Soriano was a blast to watch when he was in one of those zones in which every ball he hit would go about 5000 feet.
dmick89Quote Reply
Edwin wrote:
I actually felt that way about Ramirez in 07′ and 08′. Nobody since….Except for maybe Big Z.
LukasQuote Reply
@ Edwin:
It’s really weird. I don’t blame them, but I think Cubs fans have bought too much into the “you have to develop everything” mentality.
It’s not surprising. Cubs fans bought into Hendry and they’ve bought into Theo. Theo is better. No doubt about that, but Theo was great in part because he spent a lot of money.
If the Cubs wanted to go this route, I’d much prefer Andrew Friedman.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ JonKneeV:
I’d imagine the lower taxes in Texas also help him be okay with the move.
AndrewQuote Reply
@ Lukas:
The Cubs have had a few pitchers over the last 15 or so years that were a lot of fun to watch, but pitching is different. They don’t pack the seats or eyeballs on the tv as much as those position players do. The Cubs could have the best pitcher in the game and they’d be awesome to watch every fifth day and that’s about it.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ Andrew:
The taxes issue has always intrigued me. If I was a free agent I wouldn’t sign without being able to veto a trade to the Blue Jays. That’s a pretty big hit in terms of money.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ dmick89:
1998 is still my favorite year of baseball ever.
Looking back, from 2010 the Cubs have had 17 players with seaons of 500 PA or more. Only 2 of those were seasons with a wRC+ of 120 or more, Ramirez and Pena in 2011.
From 1990 till present, Sosa’s 2001 season was best with a 186 wRC+. Lee’s 2005 was second at 170, and then the next 3 are Sammy in the 150 range.
EdwinQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
I’ve grown to really hate the narrative of “stop sacrificing the future.” Our core prospects will be cheap for quite a while and their cheapness will offset the expensiveness of guys like Cano so they wouldnt be hamstrung that much. Tanaka and Cano would be an epic offseason and make me really excited to see the team this year. It might not turn them into contenders but that 2015 team with Bryant and Baez plus Tanaka and Cano would make me salivate.
AndrewQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
Someone at Fangraphs did a nice article on taxes. As an accountant, I find it interesting as well. Obviously the home park plays a big factor, but road games and spring training also makes a difference.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-jock-tax/
EdwinQuote Reply
@ Andrew:
Even if they don’t add Cano, adding Tanaka and Ellsbury would be great.
I’m selfish, and I’d rather the Cubs give me a reason to watch now, instead of trying to give me reasons to watch later.
EdwinQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
Ya I’m not sure how it actually works pay-wise. From what I understand, since the player technically is getting paid to work all over the country, the taxes are pretty confusing. I’m guessing only about 50% of the income would be taxed at the rate of the home teams state (maybe even less because they would spend the offseason working in Arizona or something, idk). I could be completely wrong about that though.
AndrewQuote Reply
@ Edwin:
Exactly. We will have had *at least* 4 straight years of top ten draft picks (Baez, Almora, Bryant, whoever we get this year) and spending big on IFA talent. If this front office is competent like we think they are, we shouldnt be so worried about the future getting ruined because of a bad signing.
AndrewQuote Reply
Andrew wrote:
I couldn’t say this any better. Signing free agents is not just about the following year. If you just wait until you get almost all the pieces, you more than likely end up like the Royals and Pirates. Rebuilding every few years and rarely being any good. You’re hoping for a lot of luck that way.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ Andrew:
Not to mention, there is absolutely no way of signing free agents and hitting on all of them. Some will end up disappointing. That’s just how it goes. The good GMs find a way around that and that is through development.
I heard a few years ago it was about building a great farm system and then spending money. Now it’s about getting those prospects up the big leagues and being successful. Well, that could happen, and it would be awesome, but they’ve got no one around them to make it much fun. So really, at what point do you sign big free agents if you’re always trading valuable players away and playing a waiting game?
dmick89Quote Reply
@ Edwin:
Thanks for that link. I hadn’t seen that before.
dmick89Quote Reply
Andrew wrote:
I’m pretty sure I’ll be stealing this line at some point. It’s a fantastic point.
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
yeah if thoyer/ricketts are worried that cano’s $24m salary in 2021 would really be hurting the team after providing 6 years of solid value, the cubs are in MUCH worse shape financially than i thought.
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
As if Theo is even going to be here in 2021.
MylesQuote Reply
Ok, so the wrong side of 40 is no joke, apparently. HOW THE FUCK DO I LINK TO A PICTURE?
uncle daveQuote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
It’s my sincere hope that the front office does not give a solitary fuck about what to do with Darwin Barney. He’s got very little value to this team and even less as a trade chip.
uncle daveQuote Reply
[img]http://www.computescotland.com/images/ZCPZNhbSWsPESMBJw2H60d008o.jpg[/img]
MylesQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
feel free. this blog, bleachernation, and cubs den are the only three cubs blogs I really read, but recently i’ve been really irritated how the commenters at the other two blogs seem completely content with not signing anyone that isn’t “flippable”, because “look at what Hendry did” etc. Hendry sucked because of Bobby Brownlie, Ryan Harvey, Mark Pawelek, Tyler Colvin, Josh Vitters, Andrew Cashner, Brett Jackson, and of course, Hayden Simpson. Thats 8 straight years where the cubs have drafted less than replacement level players (except Cashner, who the jury is still out on but he has some promise) from the first round (many of whom were high draft picks). Ya he made crappy signings but in his spending spree in 07 (which most people say is where he went wrong), most of those signings werent bad. He re-signed Aramis, signed Derosa, signed Lilly, signed Marquis (who actually had 6.8 WAR for 21 million over three seasons, not bad). He got unlucky and gave a bad contract to Soriano but if his draft picks had worked out, it wouldn’t be that bad. Soriano, although overpaid, is still good enough to start and provide value for a good team.
AndrewQuote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
I dunno. Who have they traded away who would be a major contributor to the 2014 Cubs?
I don’t want to belabor the point, but if you’re going to look at signing a free agent as a ‘value’ proposition, you can’t claim that a win has a static cost or value. If the Cubs don’t have the pieces to make a run in 2014, and if Cano only gets you from 73 to 80 wins, you can bet that those wins he’s providing are worth far less than what the market values them in the aggregate. And as you project his performance out over time, you should probably also discount their value based on risk and potential available alternatives. In fairness, the money you spend on the back end of a contract should also be discounted, because a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow, but on the whole I don’t think that high-profile free agent signings are a particularly good value proposition for the Cubs right now.
The bottom line to me is this: you know that the value of free agents is typically frontloaded. Why pay for that frontloaded performance when you know it won’t be enough to get you to the playoffs? The front office and ownership group knows this, and I don’t blame them for thinking this way.
I wouldn’t find fault with signing Cano or Choo or Tanaka, personally. I’d enjoy watching those guys play. But I also think that it’s a bit extreme to compare what the Cubs are doing with the Pirates or Royals. The approach that the front office has taken over the past couple of years is totally defensible based on where the club is, and I think it’s defensible for one more year. If they don’t start spending for 2015, then I’ll be concerned.
uncle daveQuote Reply
@ Myles:
Seriously, that’s the best picture that’s been taken of me in several years.
uncle daveQuote Reply
@ uncle dave:
There are certainly times when signing a player like Pujols or Fielder or Cano doesn’t make sense. Maybe the Cubs just don’t have the money, or maybe the price really does get too high. It happens.
The problem for me is why a team is trying to project wins that far out. We know that Cano probably doesn’t help the Cubs compete in 2014, but how sure are we of it? How sure are we that the Cubs can’t compete as soon as 2015? It’s too bad that the cubs would “waste” Cano’s best years during the 2 years that they’re least likely to compete, but to me the fact that Cano makes competeing in 2015 and 2016 that much closer to a reality is worth it.
It’s not that the Cubs have traded away contributors for 2014, but it’s the fact that it already sounds like some in the front office and some of the fan base would be content to give up on 2015 already. If the Cubs can’t go after these types of Free Agents, I’d rather it be for a real reason, such as budget contraint, than for some self-imposed reason such as the 2015 Cubs only being projected to win 78 games, or some number.
EdwinQuote Reply
@ uncle dave:
But who do they sign in 2015. using mlb trade rumors list http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2013/02/2015-mlb-free-agents.html here are the potentially good free agents for 2015 under the age of 33.
C
Russell Martin (32)
1B
Nothing
2B
Nothing
SS
Asdrubal Cabrera (29)
Jed Lowrie (31)
Hanley Ramirez (31)
3B
Chase Headley (31)
Pablo Sandoval (28)
OF
Brett Gardner (31)
SP
Homer Bailey (29)
Josh Beckett (35)
Josh Johnson (31)
Kyle Kendrick (30)
Clayton Kershaw (27)
Jon Lester (31)
Justin Masterson (30)
Max Scherzer (30)
The pitching is certainly there (of course assuming no additional extensions) but there really arent many good players. Who will be in the OF for the 2015 cubs? Soler and Almora will not be up full time yet (assuming they are the real deal anyways). Lake? Sweeney? I’d much rather have Choo, or Ellsbury in the OF to give us a better outfield than anything we could get in 2015. Or get Cano, have Baez play 3B and have Bryant go to the OF. Given next years crop of FA I don’t see the advantage of waiting to pick up a good position player.
AndrewQuote Reply
@ Edwin:
Exactly. The way to get to being competitive in 2014 and 2015 is by having good baseball players. Robinson Cano is a great baseball player. Sometimes it really is that easy. You don’t have to sign him to a 10 year, 310 million dollar contract that he’s nowhere near worth. Cano has been worth 28.4 WARP over his past 5 seasons. At $7 million a win, that’s 5 years/$198.8 million dollars. If you think Cano can be as valuable in the next 8 years as he was in the last 5, you do that deal. I know that’s incredibly simplistic, but it’s not that far of a stretch.
MylesQuote Reply
@ Edwin:
@ Andrew:
I probably could have said it in many fewer words (as is usually the case), but what bugs me about what I’m hearing from some folks is that not spending now = not being willing to spend ever. You guys may be right and now may be the time, but you can also craft a perfectly reasonable argument for waiting to see if some of the kids develop.
I wouldn’t be concerned if the team spent now. However, I also don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion that there will be little to no value provided by the kids that they currently have on hand, and I’d be disappointed if they made moves that resulted in crowding them out (which is why I’d be much more interested in seeing them sign Choo or Tanaka than Cano).
uncle daveQuote Reply
Edwin wrote:
Of course, nobody knows that. I wouldn’t classify the wins in the near term as wasted, just of less value. If you’re talking about a deal that pushes the true talent level of your team from 77 to 83 wins, it raises the chances that you make the playoffs by a few percent. If it’s going to take you from 87 to 93, you’re suddenly talking about increasing your chances by 30, 40, 50 percent.
I’m not suggesting terminating a deal based on that, just that a smart front office will value a player differently based on their situation, their budget constraints, and the alternatives that they have internally and on the market. (As Andrew noted, those alternatives might suck and that might change your notion of value. For the Cubs, I’m thinking that OF is where the alternatives are the slimmest.) And it’s pretty easy to draw a path towards not committing to major free agent signings if you look at those facts.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see them sign some players who are worth watching. I just think that they’re going to run this team like a business, and I can’t argue with that (even if there are other teams who throw that shit out the window).
uncle daveQuote Reply
@ uncle dave:
Don’t get me wrong, I’d much rather have Ellsbury or Choo than Cano. All things being equal though, I’d rather have Cano at 8/200 then none of the 3. It’s going to get really difficult to get impact players through FA in the immediate future, especially outfielders. Look at the 2015 free agents.
MylesQuote Reply
Andrew wrote:
I read both of those blogs, but not the comments. Just don’t have the time.
It does irritate me too that it’s gotten to the point where no one wants to sign any free agent as if that’s a path to success for the Cubs. Their advantage at this point boils down to one thing: money. They don’t have that advantage over everyone, but they do most teams and they should use it. Otherwise, I imagine it’s like trying to knit a Christmas sweater with one hand tied behind your back. (dying laughing)
dmick89Quote Reply
@ uncle dave:
This is something that frustrates about the theory of marginal wins. It’s very true that the relative value of win 78 is way lower than win 88. However, if the goal is to get to win 94, you still have to buy win 78 eventually. The end goal, from the FO perspective, is not to end at any win total from 74 to 89, and that’s admirable. It’s also incredibly difficult to do.
The only way to start buying the wins that matter is to buy the wins that don’t (unless you’re signing MIke Trout, or something).
Complete aside: If Mike Trout were in this FA class, what deal would you offer him? I think I might offer him 18 years, $500 million.
MylesQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
I only read Cubs Den, Bleacher Nation, and this blog also. I generally read all of the comments, but the BN comments are getting harder and harder to read as he becomes more popular. It really invites some lowest-common-denominator fans that aren’t exactly constructive voices. I definitely respect many of the opinions on that board, but the white noise ratio is quite high. Cubs Den is better in that regard, and John is actually really good at interacting with his commenters. Of course, I feel like we have the best commenters, but I also write here and thus obviously am biased/challenged.
MylesQuote Reply
@ uncle dave:
Good points. I’m probably overreacting a bit. I just think that when the Cubs have the resources they (should) have, they don’t need to be as concerned with having the best $/WAR ratio at the end of the year, or optimizing every single contract. Sometimes I think this whole “we need our onfield plan to line up with our business plan” is a waste. They can barely put up a fucking sign without it being delayed for years, why do they think they’ll be able to line up the baseball and business side so well going forward?
EdwinQuote Reply
uncle dave wrote:
I think you can always argue it’s better to wait for some prospects to develop. I don’t disagree, but where I think you and I disagree is just how far that development has to be. I haven’t been able to nail this down yet in discussions I’ve had here. Nobody seems able or willing to answer it or maybe I haven’t asked in a clear enough way. At what point do they spend? Does Baez have to come up and be successful? That will take at least a year for me to buy into it. Castro had 3 years and then sucked and who knows? Do they have to wait for Bryant too?
Waiting for prospects as an answer, at least to me, is not very clearly defined. Maybe it’s impossible to do so. I don’t know, but it seems to me the answer to building longterm success is in building a strong farm system and spending money. That farm system is pretty good at this point. It could use more balance, but a lot of teams are probably saying that. The Cubs have the chips to acquire pitching if needed. Or free agency. Do they wait until they’re all proven and good (which may not happen)? At that point, are we concerned about their inflated salaries and Castro’s age?
Is the answer more like this: I’ll know it when they’re ready to spend? Like porn or something. You just know it.
Maybe that is the answer. I really don’t know. I’ve never run an MLB team and wouldn’t want to, but success can be had in different ways. It’s best achieved by attacking all fronts. That, I don’t think anybody would argue with. I think we all agree on that.
What we disagree on is at what point that is. I think it’s now.
Maybe I’m wrong. As I said, I don’t know, but I’ve not been convinced waiting is the answer to sustained success. I obviously haven’t convinced others that I’m right either.
dmick89Quote Reply
I’d also add that I don’t mean to imply the Cubs will never spend because they won’t right now. I don’t really believe that, but I also believe we don’t have a clue what kind of money Ricketts is really ready to invest. So the answer to whether to spend now or in the future is really a big question mark. Nobody knows.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ Myles:
I really enjoy Bleacher Nation because Brett does a great job of gathering and distributing Cubs news.
I like OV because I feel like there’s better in depth analysis here, the comments are way better, and there are way more SF updates.
EdwinQuote Reply
Legitimate question: what team is there out there currently that’s throwing its payroll weight around in Free Agency (or has over the past three years or so) that doesn’t have an aging roster and/or will be absolutely screwed in 3-5 years by bad contracts? The only team I can think of that fits this is the Red Sox, and only after getting insanely lucky on mid-level free agent signings and having Ned Colletti completely bail them out a year and a half ago.
sitrickQuote Reply
[img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BZn59uCCUAA4Rab.jpg:large[/img]
Like You CareQuote Reply
@ Edwin:
I think the 3 sites all serve different purposes.
If I wanted to be a reporting site, I’d quit early on. John has actual sources and is much more in tune to that sort of thing. If I wanted to be an “all things Cubs-news related” site, I’d quit early on. Brett is quite simply without match in that area. He is extremely dedicated, and he writes quickly, intelligently, and eloquently. He’ll outwork me every time, and he can afford to (this is his full-time job). I don’t want to be either of those things. I want to provide in-depth analysis on the stuff that actually happens. John is going to tell you if something might happen, Brett will tell you when it does, and OV will tell you what it means. I don’t mean to sell either of them short, but I do think that we are most successful when it comes into the actual statistical analysis going on with respect to the Cubs.
MylesQuote Reply
@ Edwin:
Yes, this is definitely the best Cubs blog for football analysis (SF in particular).
Like You CareQuote Reply
One other thing, I think we might to reconsider the idea of large contracts not being traceable after the Red Sox/Dodgers and Tigers/Rangers trades. They clearly are traceable at any point during the contract.
dmick89Quote Reply
Jason Vargas ——–> KC
Four year deal (dying laughing)
BerseliusQuote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
That’s what GMs get paid for. But more importantly, I think you can sort of get a sense of this. I think over the past couple of years when the Pirates would get off to a hot first half and would be in it at the deadline, opinions were pretty universal that they had a lot of talent coming up and they shouldn’t sell off too much yet because the timing wasn’t right. it was only this season (after they were clearly a much more talented team with a much better foundation) that the general perception became, yes, they should try and go for it and be aggressive (and unsurprisingly, they were aggressive, with Huntington giving up that quote about how they were ready to do something stupid but not crazy or whatever his line was).
I really cannot understand why people are so impatient at this point. We knew they would have to get pretty lucky for things to work out for 2014. They didn’t. Castro, Rizzo, Vizcaino, Vitters, B. Jackson, E. Jackson, plays at Darvish, Puig, Sanchez, Cespedes, etc etc. They haven’t been especially unlucky, but they haven’t been lucky either. All the more reason to stick to the plan and aim for 2016 to be really, on-paper good, which was the year I thought everyone was expecting anyway.
sitrickQuote Reply
@ sitrick:
But the Cubs don’t have an aging roster so I’m not really sure what the point is. They have a young roster with potential impact bats coming up. This roster is in no danger of becoming an old team right now. Tanaka is, what, 26? Robinson Cano isn’t that old.
dmick89Quote Reply
Myles wrote:
That looks more like it.
EdwinQuote Reply
@ Edwin:
(dying laughing)
dmick89Quote Reply
Technically all rosters are aging.
3-5 years is a long time, and a lot can happen. Young players can come up, even big contracts can be traded, other FA can be signed, players can get busted for steroids and have a year of their contract wiped from the books. You know, all kinds of things.
Tigers are doing pretty well.
EdwinQuote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
They don’t have an aging roster currently. But if you add Ellsbury, Choo, and Cano, suddenly it looks a lot older, and looks even more so in 2 or 3 years when your contention window is just opening.
I absolutely want them to sign Tanaka, and I think that’s exactly the kind of player the Cubs should be flexing financial muscle on. Blow everyone out of the water by 20 mil on the posting fee, go for it. It’s just money and you get a guy in his mid twenties filling a hole you absolutely want filled (have fun with that Ryno). Hell, I want Cano if he costs less than 200 mil.
We keep talking about how risky prospects are. It’s an almost certainty that not all of the Big Four will work out, sure. But it seems pretty damn likely to me that at least one of them WILL work out and become that Role 6 or 7 guy we’re hoping for. And the priority, in my mind, HAS to be making sure that, if one or two of these prospects become that guy, that there’s money available to keep everyone that’s worth keeping so you can put together a 10 year contention window. I don’t want to be the angels with free agent dead weight keeping me from having the money to extend our Mike Trout if he comes along.
sitrickQuote Reply
@ sitrick:
I think trying to open up a 10 year window of contention is too impossible to plan for with any certainty. I wouldn’t make it a priority.
If I’m the Angels, I’m not worried about keeping Mike Trout 3-4 years from now, I’m worried about finding a way to win in the next 3-4 years.
EdwinQuote Reply
I actually like the Vargas signing for the Royals, but that’s just me.
MylesQuote Reply
Myles wrote:
I think it boils down to what you consider ‘buying’ a win to be. If you look at the whole picture, you’re buying wins that come from controlled players (at a cost that includes signing bonuses and player development costs) as well as the ones on the open market. The difference really lies in the risks associated with taking either path — with the kids, you’re bearing more performance risk, and with free agents, you’re bearing more financial risk. And as much as anything else, that’s where the concept of marginal value comes in handy. That performance risk is magnified for a contending team as you don’t want to gamble on a potential black hole that could pull you out of the race. On the flip, financial risk for a free agent increases as you project forward.
I do definitely agree with you about needing to find win 78 before you find win 94, and honestly, I think the evolution of the CBA should be radically changing how people think about this. It’s quickly becoming the case that the only way you can acquire major league talent is to either develop it yourself, or exchange other major league talent for it. Buying it on the market is quickly evaporating as an option. It’ll be interesting to see how the smart teams start to operate in this new context.
uncle daveQuote Reply
@ Edwin:
Well, that’s a good question and a good point. There’s always this nagging feeling in the back of my head that the job of the Cubs’ front office is going to be complicated quite a bit by following a strict set of business principles. In most cases, it’s a sound way of building and running a successful and sustainable enterprise (both on the field and off). But it’s complicated by the fact that there are a few gorillas who give zero fucks about sustainability, knowing that they want to win now and can always get out of the game with more than they put in if they paint their team into a corner (see also: Zell, Sam). I’m not entirely sure that you can play by the rules when a bunch of other folks aren’t.
uncle daveQuote Reply
sitrick wrote:
As someone else said, if that money isn’t available to sign one of those guys to a contract of something like 7 years and $100 million then the Cubs have way more problems than any of us have even considered. If one or two of those guys work out, the last thing I’m even thinking about is the team’s ability to sign them to a team friendly contract. It will be cheap. The money will be there.
Besides, nobody has even honestly said the team should put themselves in a position where that would happen. There’s almost no possible way that happens. The Cubs could sign Ellsbury, Choo and Cano and they’d still have money to sign Baez and Bryant to team friendly contracts. That’s just not an issue. At least not if we think the Cubs have much of any money to spend in the future.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ Edwin:
OV sounds like a great blog.
Like You CareQuote Reply
sitrick wrote:
Like You CareQuote Reply
@ Myles:
Also, I’d do 18/500 in a heartbeat. Time value of money makes the out years a steal. I’d go to 18/720, given the chance.
uncle daveQuote Reply
Edwin wrote:
Fixed.
Like You CareQuote Reply
@ uncle dave:
Can’t wait to see the headline: Angels and Trout remain $450 million apart
dmick89Quote Reply
@ uncle dave:
You might be able to buy Trout from the Angels for that. It’s worth a shot, but I really want no part of a $720 million deal. I’d like to see a natural progression of contracts and going from $300 million as the largest to $720, well, that’s too much for me. (dying laughing)
dmick89Quote Reply
@ dmick89:
That all depends on your ability/willingness to spend and your confidence in the kids, probably. I think the Cubs probably have less of the former and more of the latter than you do based on what I’m hearing, and if that’s the case, I’m fine with trying to build a team that has an outside chance of contending in 2014 with room to bring up a couple of kids and continue to give Rizzo/Castro a chance to grow.
One thing that doesn’t necessarily get factored into the analysis is this: if you need to develop players, they need a place to play. Even Mike Trout struggled in his first time around, and I’d be reluctant to not give guys like Baez and Bryant playing time this year in an effort to prep them to be ready to join a contender in 2015. It would be awfully difficult (though it maybe shouldn’t be) to sign a big-ticket guy and then bench him once a better and cheaper alternative is ready.
I’m not against seeing the team spend at all. I’m just interested in seeing it done in a way that doesn’t adversely limit future options.
uncle daveQuote Reply
uncle dave wrote:
1000x this.
sitrickQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
Okay, sure, signing Cano, Ellsbury, and Choo will theoretically leave you enough payroll flexibility to take care of the kids you’ve got coming up if they pan out too. But then say 2014 is a .500 team. What’s the plan for the next offseason? Adding another 50 mil in year-to-year payroll by chasing Kershaw, Scherzer, and extending F7?
The reality of baseball in 2013, imo, is that you have to build a core through drafting, trades and player development and let it mature into major league talent before you can augment it through free agency. And I don’t think you can rush it or take shortcuts given the new CBA. Otherwise you just end up like the Phillies. Again, the plan was always to be a good team by 2016. Why are we suddenly impatient and wanting to accelerate that when the requisite good luck with player development hasn’t happened?
sitrickQuote Reply
uncle dave wrote:
Who would Cano and either Choo or Ellsbury be blocking over the next few years?
Seems to me there’s plenty of room for just about everybody, even with an uncommonly high success rate from the Cubs current top 10.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
Ordinarily, I’d be really reluctant to take on that much risk. In this case, I think that a) Trout is worth the AAV now and b) he’s likely to be worth that, given inflation, for a very long time. I’d also like to see heads explode when it happens. Added bonus, I guess…
uncle daveQuote Reply
sitrick wrote:
I don’t see it as impatience as much as it is spending money that’s there to acquire players that should still be high-producing once the magical 2016 season arrives.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
@ Smokestack Lightning:
I see a crowded infield, though there’s room in the outfield for sure. That situation could quickly change if Castro never recovers, but I’m not ready to take that leap just yet.
You could always sign Cano and move him or someone else out to left, though that would significantly reduce the value he brings to you.
uncle daveQuote Reply
Smokestack Lightning wrote:
Making aggressive moves when the stated plan was to start aggressively trying to contend around 2016 seems like impatience to me, but that’s probably just semantics.
And acquiring players that should still be high-producing once 2016 rolls around is exactly what I feel like the FO has done, they’ve just come in second on a lot of their targets. Darvish, Puig, Cespedes, Sanchez…to say that they’re not trying to get those guys seems really disingenuous to me.
sitrickQuote Reply
uncle dave wrote:
If it’s Cano we’re talking about, I couldn’t care less if Castro comes around. You don’t not sign Robinson Cano because of Starlin Castro.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
sitrick wrote:
I still don’t see that. If Cano and Choo are still putting up big years by then (and I believe it’s more likely they will be than not), why is it impatience? Why isn’t it foresight? Say Baez, Bryant, Soler, and Almora are all playing at a high level by 2016, wouldn’t having Cano and Choo doing the same thing only make the team better?
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
Smokestack Lightning wrote:
Yeah, I disagree. If signing a player over another one who already has value limits where you can spend money elsewhere, it certainly comes into play. I’m assuming the subtext here is that Castro isn’t going to have value going forward, and I’m not ready to take that leap yet.
uncle daveQuote Reply
@ sitrick:
The Tigers actually stick out to me as people that have thrown their money around and aren’t screwed. Nationals spent big on Werth and have a really bright future. Rangers spend big on people a lot and have a bright future. Braves have a bright future and they spent big recently
AndrewQuote Reply
sitrick wrote:
Let’s not be silly here. If they sign those three, they’re going to contend next year. Will they make the playoffs? Well, I have no idea. I think the 2009 team was the best Cubs team in my lifetime when the season began. They didn’t make the playoffs. That team was ridiculously unlucky. The next best was the 2004 team and they didn’t make the playoffs either. Both teams did contend and the 2014 Cubs would contend with those three.
Despite that, I would never advocate the Cubs sign all three of them. Or I wouldn’t in a serious way. I wouldn’t want that any more than I want the Cubs to sign on their hands on wait. I’d be happy to watch them play and probably wouldn’t complain a whole lot, but I don’t think anyone here is suggesting they go out and sign all the players.
I can’t speak for everyone, but what I’m saying is that spending money is part of rebuilding. If that money can get you players who you expect to be good not just in 2014, but 2015, 2016 and beyond then it’s every bit as worthwhile to this team as waiting for some prospects.
dmick89Quote Reply
Smokestack Lightning wrote:
This.
dmick89Quote Reply
I don’t understand why we’re just talking 2014 here either. I want the team to get better in 2014 and be ready to contend when Baez and Bryant are ready to produce, which I don’t see as feasible until 2015 or 2016. It’s not like there are many players who come to the big league and produce immediately. Even if those two are successful, it’s highly likely it’s not immediate.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ uncle dave:
Sounds like it’s 50/50 Bryant sticks at 3rd. Considering his level, I’d say it’s likely we’re talking RF. I don’t see the infield as that crowded and I agree with SL, move Castro wherever (including a possible trade). If they all work out as we hope, you can always trade a player.
dmick89Quote Reply
Wow, ten years later and Cubs blogs are still a thing.
Was ACB banned from the CBA? Seems strange they’re not listed: http://www.cubsblogarmy.com/
Suburban kidQuote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
I can’t agree with calling this foresight. The uncertainty of the outcome related to any decision you make now grows as time comes. If you make a decision now that limits your choices in 2016, you’re accepting risk that you may not be able to make the right move then. And what do you get out of it? Performance from those guys next year, when given the current facts it doesn’t look like that’ll be worth all that much to you?
Look, I could see advocating for taking that risk now based on information that indicates alternatives to finding that production won’t be available in 2015 or 2016 and beyond, and that might be a reasonable way of looking at it. But the farther out you project, the less info you have on what your needs might be and how your risks might pay off. Why take that chance before you have to?
uncle daveQuote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
The Cubs have spent money rebuilding. You can’t overlook the guys they picked up and then flipped. If they would have signed a big-ticket, long-term player in 2011, it would have done them little good in the short term and reduced their ability to build via draft and trade in the long term.
There’s a time to make a big splash. I just don’t think we’re there yet, as much as I’d like to be wrong.
uncle daveQuote Reply
@ Suburban kid:
It was on there at one point. Who ran that? That was one of the GROTA guys, right?
dmick89Quote Reply
@ uncle dave:
I don’t see the guys they flipped as spending money though it technically is. Those are the types of guys that the Royals and Pirates sign. To me, that’s not where the Cubs can take advantage of the one thing they have over those teams.
Signing a player in 2011 would have done little to nothing, I agree, which is why I didn’t suggest they spend money at that time. It’s why I was in favor of a full rebuild.
uncle dave wrote:
I agree with part of this. The part about the uncertainty. I don’t agree with the implication that it’s an unacceptable risk. Then again, i’m assuming the Cubs maybe get 1 of their big 4 to become a good MLB player. I’m also assuming that players can shift positions and be traded even if the player fails to live up to expectations. This is the Cubs and with that one advantage (money) they can also take risks that other teams can’t.
The only reason I can see this team not being willing to take such risks is if they simply cannot do so. The transaction came back “insufficient funds”. Given the high cost of the team when Ricketts bought it and the renovation, that very well could be the issue. They just can’t flex their muscle where it counts. I don’t know, but it seems more and more likely to me the longer they go without spending. Also, some of Theo’s comments have hinted at this anyway.
For one thing, i find it hard to believe that another team’s GM wasn’t able to evaluate the Cubs system when Theo was hired. I don’t think it took him too long to realize this farm system sucked, but I think it did take him awhile to realize that the owner had no money to spend.
I don’t think that will last forever, but I also don’t think that’s going away anytime soon. I could be wrong, but that’s the feeling I’ve had for awhile now.
dmick89Quote Reply
You know dictionaries are always adding new words? I think words should also be retired. Nigh. It seems every person I read online is using that word in their articles this year. I want it gone. I don’t ever want to read that word ever again.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ dmick89:
The time to retire the word “nigh” is nigh!
I guess I’ve been pre-banned for that stupid comment since I can’t log in anymore haha. Funny how it works on my phone and not desktop, I’ll clear my cache later on.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
Yeah, it’s basically impossible to determine what a team’s intentions are even after the dust has settled on an offseason/season, much less trying to figure it out solely on what they’re saying in the press. Theo might be trying to manage expectations, knowing that the best he can do is get the team within a shout for the 2014 season (or at least knowing that’s the plan). Or he might be throwing out a decoy to move the market in his favor. But even if the dust settles and they get nobody, we’ll probably not know if that’s the plan. They might have talked with Cano, made him a competitive offer, and had him tell the Cubs to go fly a kite because Sammy’s in his ear and is still pissed about the boombox. Not saying that’s a thing, but the amount of info you can get on the outside is minuscule, especially with these guys running the show.
All I’ve been trying to convey with these ill-advised novellas is that I can defend what they’ve done to date, and I can defend holding off just a bit longer. Not that I have any information or insights, it’s just opinion. Maybe the time is nigh to spend some real dough. We’ll find out, I guess.
uncle daveQuote Reply
uncle dave wrote:
(dying laughing)
dmick89Quote Reply
@ dmick89:
Sorry, you knew that was going to happen, right?
uncle daveQuote Reply
@ uncle dave:
I’ve definitely enjoyed this thread and I also enjoyed being un-banned (I can log in again!)
I’m hopeful that the reason they’re not spending is by choice and not be necessity. If it’s by necessity, then they’re F’d. If it’s by choice, then at least we can rationalize it a bit since we’re debating whether the time is right to fill in the blanks with free agency. I’ve just been reading but abstaining because you guys have done a good job on your own and I honestly don’t know which way is the best way. I do feel that having the #4 pick in a deep class (if Cubs Den’s thoughts hold water, which they often do) would give the Cubs incentive to hold on to the $1.3MM or whatever that the second rounder is worth, which would be lost if they signed some of the big guns.
Of course, Bronson Arroyo is still out there… *meh*
Rice CubeQuote Reply
@ Rice Cube:
Yeah, agreed. On the other hand, I should really have gotten some work done today.
uncle daveQuote Reply
uncle dave wrote:
Out of curiosity, what does Big Splash Time look like to you? If it’s what I think it is, there’s a far better chance that situation won’t occur than it will–at least not any time soon.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
It’s bullshit, you know? They give you a raise, but then they expect you to do more work and shit. Dunno about this racket.
uncle daveQuote Reply
RC, I’ve noticed occasional issues with login on my phone or iPad, but not desktop. Pretty sure it has to do with the plugin for the login on the sidebar. We should get rid of that and use the built in way for WP, but I’ve been lazy. I’ll clear the site’s cache tomorrow.
@ uncle dave: you’ve mentioned the CBA several times during these discussions. I’m not ready to go as far as you have in terms of what you think will happen. One, if teams stop spending on free agents, salaries for cost-controlled players will increase unless you think that teams are going to be spending less money. Two, the current CBA expires after 2016 and there will be changes. I have no idea what they will be and I doubt anybody has any idea at this point. You work within the system that you have, but that system in baseball is more fluid than I think you’re giving credit.
I think we can expect more revenue sharing. That’s about all that I think is a safe bet. I also think an international draft will start before the CBA even expires. Not that it matters much given the current system though.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ Smokestack Lightning:
I’d say it’s when you have a cost-controlled core and short-term pieces in place to get you in the mid-80 win range, or maybe a bit short of that if there are good opportunities to buy available on the market and you have the payroll space to do it. I honestly think that the Cubs are a couple of kids and a couple of astute mid-range signings away, all of which can fall into place by the end of 2014.
For the record, I’m still an advocate for signing Choo. I think he fills a position of great need where we have no real alternatives and can make a huge difference now and in the future. I just don’t buy that anything short of a major splash during this offseason indicates a poor strategy or an unwillingness to spend like a big-market team.
uncle daveQuote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
Yep, I agree with this. But I also think that the result of this will be for teams to focus even more on keeping their own guys around and not letting them hit free agency. If you’re the Pirates and you suddenly start getting a check from the Yankees every year, aren’t you more likely to give $8 million to Charlie Morton instead of bringing up some kid at league minimum? It might not be the smart decision, but it’ll become more common to do shit like that. (And it’ll become way more common if a salary cap is instituted, because that will almost certainly involve a salary floor to go along with it.)
Everything that’s happened with the CBA recently has reduced the avenues for finding talent on the cheap, which in turn has made it imperative to hang on to the assets you have. I don’t see that changing anytime soon.
uncle daveQuote Reply
uncle dave wrote:
I don’t think I’ve done a very good job explaining where I stand on this issue because I don’t disagree with what you say here too much. I think most of us here advocating spending believe they should do so in a responsible way. A huge spending spree is not what I want. Signing a player like Choo or Ellsbury makes a lot of sense.
I don’t think not spending is an unwillingness to spend, but rather being unable to spend. No way to know whether Ricketts is willing to spend since he hasn’t spent big yet. I don’t buy the Cubs are lowering payroll over the last few years and just putting that money elsewhere though. Payrolls have increased and the Cubs have declined without spending considerably more than other teams on player development.
Longterm, I believe if Ricketts is willing to spend, they’ll spend almost every year. Good or bad.
dmick89Quote Reply
uncle dave wrote:
Not an easy thing to build from scratch.
uncle dave wrote:
Hm. I wouldn’t necessarily say it is a poor strategy, just a riskier one. If Theo continues to pass on elite players available for only money, he better be right about the Almora, Soler, Baez, and Bryant, and not just on one or even two of them. Otherwise we’re looking at a lost decade pretty fucking quickly.
Anyway.
If the target is 2016, then it makes a ton of sense to pursue the aforementioned players from this free agent class (especially when next year’s class is a whole lot of dogshit position-player wise) and build a core around these players (and those currently on the roster who either bounce back or break out) and those of the Big Four who make it by 2016.
But If it’s about building a winner based around the bulk of the WAR coming from a core produced by the system, then I don’t know why a year is being put on that. It may take many top prospects and many, many drafts before we hit on enough guys to make that happen. If the Big Four all become merely decent major leaguers that’s a pretty amazing yield, but even that rosy scenario doesn’t produce a winner.
Imo, there is an opportunity now to begin to build a team that can be very competitive by 2016 (if not sooner), and doesn’t rely on Soler, Almora, Bryant, and Baez all reaching an elite level of play right out of the box. They can have a more realistic career arc and the team can still succeed.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
@ uncle dave:
I agree, but the end result of this is going to be a huge increase in cost to keep your own players. The players union won’t stand for decreased salaries and if teams keep signing their good players, that’s what happens. Right now the players get about 50% of revenue. That will decline quite a bit if teams keep signing their players. The MLBPA will ensure changes in a future CBA that balances it out again. Either players hit free agency sooner or salaries for these players go through the roof. Either way, we’re back in the same spot.
I wouldn’t be too surprised to see the next CBA shorten the amount of time needed before being eligible for free agency.
dmick89Quote Reply
Yeah, I’ve said this before. You can’t just hit on one of them if this is the plan. You pretty much need all of them. Good luck with that.
dmick89Quote Reply
I'd try to contribute something else but Dave's already articulated 95% of what I think in a way more eloquent way than I would, so, yeah, what he said.
sitrickQuote Reply
Everyone has made good points. The idea of an offense is to have at least one superstar plus a few 3+ WAR seasons to compete any given year. As dmick said, assuming the cubs can afford it, there isn’t anything wrong with them buying one from FA this year to have in their back pocket come 2016 and beyond so we don’t necessarily have to rely on one more youngster to be great.
Based on what will be available in 2015, like we thought about SP this year when Anibal was discussed, the time to strike, so to speak, is probably sooner rather than later.
exhoosier10Quote Reply
Smokestack Lightning wrote:
Maybe not, but I don’t think they’re really that far away. Say the true talent level of the team is where RLYW had it in that article that dm linked to recently, which I recall was 73 wins. That puts you a dozen away. The roster right now has a handful of major holes to fill — second, third, left, center, and a few on the pitching staff. You can grab two wins from a couple of kids and three wins from three mid-level free agents and get there.
Smokestack Lightning wrote:
Smokestack Lightning wrote:
This is where I’m inclined to disagree. If you’re talking about 2014, yes, it’s riskier. You have a much better idea of what you’re going to get from a free agent than you do from a guy who hasn’t played in the bigs. If you’re talking about 2016, I can’t say I agree with you. Not only do you have to project the performance of a veteran three years out, which carries a lot more risk than I think you may be giving it credit for, but you also have the opportunity to tap into a very deep (and ever-deepening) system to find options that work. The Gang of Four are the most likely to fit the bill, but there are other guys who could potentially give you value on that timeline. And if they don’t, and you’ve already spent a substantial chunk of your payroll on guys who are starting their decline, you’re in far worse shape than you would be if you had not made those moves.
To the second point, I think it’s vital to continue to build your system whenever you have the opportunity for the very reason noted above — namely, you want depth. You want depth because some of these guys are going to miss, and you want depth because depth can be flipped for major league talent (at least for the time being). If you get deep enough into signing free agents that you move to the middle of the pack, you’re in no man’s land. You won’t get value out of the draft, you don’t have protected picks, but you also don’t get the playoff appearance.
If I felt like it was more difficult to add those dozen wins that are keeping the Cubs out of the playoff chase, I’d feel differently. But if you’re in a situation where you can move to the top relatively quickly and you have the opportunity to add assets in an environment where teams are richly rewarded for really, really sucking, I’m not sure you want to muddle through to mediocrity.
uncle daveQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
Yeah, I just don’t see the math that requires a 100% success rate on all four of those guys.
uncle daveQuote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
I don’t know if I agree with this. Players still have to consent to extensions, and if they think that they can get more on the open market, they’ll go. I think that there will be enough guys still hitting the market to set expectations on value, though if there is a premium on free agent talent you may be right and we may see salaries go up. But that would result in an aggregate increase in player salaries, not a decrease (i.e. if the cost of keeping players goes up, so do salaries generally).
dmick89 wrote:
I think that’s the least probable outcome, honestly, assuming that the owners are driving the bus on the next CBA. They’d much rather prefer to pay a premium for established talent than take on the risk of paying for guys who have not yet established a measurable performance level. It’s really similar to what we’ve seen the NBA do, and that’s 100% owner-driven. And since the MLBPA representation is grossly skewed towards established veteran players, the owners would likely get no resistance there.
Not meaning to sound pissy with all of this stuff, I’m at the back end of a 14-hour workday.
uncle daveQuote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
Not sure if your question got answered, but the discussion has been good. Here’s my answer:
If you have a bunch of promising players at A ball or lower and nothing much above that, you spend conservatively. The chances of the A ball guys washing out are still pretty high. (Or if you have scads of money, you buy all the FAs, like the Yankees did for awhile.) Once they start producing after a decent amount of AA experience, you spend more on FAs that will still be producing when the kids come up.
I’m fine with an off-season like last year. I’d prefer the Cubs get Ellsbury or Choo, because OF is a huge hole.
I prefer tiered FA signing, a few each year so that the contract start and end times are staggered.
SVBQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
Byron of the Cubdom, and I think he did join the GROTA at one point.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
@ SVB:
I agree. I still think that Cano on an 8/200 deal would make sense, but I think there is a strong case to be made that if the Cubs have that much money to throw around, they’d be wiser to try and spread it around to 2 of Choo, Ellsbury, or Tanaka.
If the Cubs don’t add at least 1 of Choo, Ellsbury, or Tanaka, I’ll consider it a bad offseason.
EdwinQuote Reply
I’m not sure $200 MM could sign any permutation of two of Choo/Ellsbury/Tanaka. In fact, I’m going to have a contest post coming today about that.
MylesQuote Reply
@ uncle dave:
To use the 73 wins as a true talent that you mentioned as an example, you’re using it two years from now which means that some of those players won’t be around. Like Jeff Samardzija.
When I say that all four have to hit, I’m talking 8 to 10 WAR between them. That would be successful.
There are parts to this that we just aren’t going to agree on no matter how much we talk about it. I think we agree more than we disagree and maybe it’s those parts we should try to discuss going forward. I love disagreements as much as anyone, but if nobody is nudged in one direction or the other, it becomes pointless. Kind of like Congress.
dmick89Quote Reply
New Contest Aside
http://obstructedview.net/commentary-and-analysis/free-agent-contract-prediction-contest.html
MylesQuote Reply
Suburban kid wrote:
Yep, he, Kurt, and Rob were the original writers of GROTA
JasonQuote Reply
uncle dave wrote:
Fair enough. As dm said, not likely to change each other’s mind on this, so probably best to leave it where it is. I do think the FO is far more inclined to your perspective than mine, and I don’t think any of Cano, Choo, Ellsbury, or Tanaka is going to happen.
But if they persist with this strategy, I don’t think we’re going to contend in 2016 (or beyond) either. Hope I’m wrong.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
The Other Chris Young ———————–> Mets
Since the FO is perennially dumpster diving, wouldn’t have minded him on a one year flip deal.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
@ Smokestack Lightning:
same with josh johnson
dmick89Quote Reply
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Cubs-Fan-Takes-Issue-With-Girls-Loud-Cheering-232867601.html
(dying laughing) Who comes after *an 11-year old girl* on Twitter?
GBTSQuote Reply
Having said that, if I were a season ticket holder who had to put up with unreasonable conduct every single game, I’d be annoyed too. But I have no idea what goes on in Section 527 and whether or not its reasonable. This is really all on the kid’s dad to make sure her daughter’s enthusiasm doesn’t make everyone in the vicinity miserable. I doubt it does.
GBTSQuote Reply
I’m not at all mad we missed out on Young (1 year, ~$7.25 million). He’s now 3 seasons away from his most productive season. He’s had thigh issues that point to a fairly quick decline in his speed. He’s a fast guy with a perennially low BABIP, so take that how you will. He’s going to need to put up 2 or 3 WARP to be a real bargain, and I think it’s much more likely that he’s $7.25 million of injured, dead weight that prevents us from taking a gamble on a more prudent investment. He’s not like Josh Johnson, where his peak is one of the best players at his position in the game (also pitching is always easier to flip).
MylesQuote Reply
GBTS wrote:
Not an 11-year-old boy, that’s for sure.
[img]http://www.tofugu.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/rimshot-o-2.gif[/img]
Like You CareQuote Reply
BerseliusQuote Reply
Myles wrote:
All true. Still wouldn’t have minded.
Myles wrote:
Not a ton of those “prudent investments” out there. And if 7.25MM spent on Chris Young truly hampers the team’s ability to go after someone else in the same range, then feh, what a disaster this organization is.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
Yeah, I’m not aware of many $7-10M bounce-back options with 2-3 WAR potential that can play all 3 outfield positions.
GBTSQuote Reply
Chris Young was more valuable more recently than Scott Baker. Young is a far more likely candidate to return to where he once was than Baker. Young put up a 2.5 fWAR season as recently as 2012 and that was in half a season of plate appearances.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ Myles:
I feel pretty much the same. He’s always been a high-K guy (which is masked somewhat now because of the rise in league-K rates) playing in a great hitters’ park. Now he’s had some injury issues and is basically the short side of a platoon outfielder. Would much rather have taken a chance on Johnson.
GWQuote Reply
GWQuote Reply
Smokestack Lightning wrote:
I assume there is a theoretical limit as to the money Theo and Co. have to spend. I don’t want $7 million of it going to Chris Young, especially if we have like $30 million to work with. Johnson would have been a better gamble. Baker will be a better gamble and likely won’t cast 7.25 for a single year (though who knows, I guess). Also, Young’s value is largely derived from power and defense, two things he probably doesn’t have in ample supply these days (and BP has his 2012 WARP at 1.2).
MylesQuote Reply
It’s getting a little ridiculous that every player that signs, someone implies that we should have signed him.
Woo hoo Chris Young! He’d really make a difference!
JonKneeVQuote Reply
I wouldn’t pay Baker $2 million. I’d probably offer $1 million plus incentives for 10, 20 and 30 starts that would take the value up to $5 million.
He’d sign elsewhere, but the Cubs can do better than him and probably spend less.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ JonKneeV:
Isn’t that true for all the players they’ve signed? None were ever going to be difference makers.
dmick89Quote Reply
2 rWAR in 2012 for Young. Average war of about 2, which came after two very good seasons in 2010 and 2011. Steamer projects 1.7 in 434 plate appearances. He’d be the best outfielder on the Cubs.
That’s fucking sad!
dmick89Quote Reply
@ dmick89:
Yes. That’s the point. Who cares if they signed Chris Young? The AAV of adding Chris Young and Josh Johnson is $15m+. That might be around the AAV of Choo. Josh Johnson was so unbelievably bad last year. Wishing for him to go back to a Cy Young candidate is as likely as Mark Prior making it back. He’s now 3 years removed from being a viable starter. Seriously, you thought Castro was bad last year? At least he wasn’t as bad as Josh Johnson.
We don’t really know what Junior Lake is, but he might be just as good or better than Chris Young and he costs $500K.
Do you really want to sign players just to sign players? If they don’t get Choo, Ellsbury, Tanaka, etc. then I could understand the need to discuss the stinginess of the FO/Ricketts. These lottery ticket guys aren’t really worth a discussion IMO.
JonKneeVQuote Reply
@ JonKneeV:
I’m thinking you’re making too much out of what was, at most, an offhand remark.
Not a terrible move if the Cubs had signed Young to the deal he got from the Mets, as he’d be the best of a bad bunch of OFs and could conceivably play himself into a trade that could potentially help the club long-term. That’s all.
As to having to suffer through transaction after transaction where somebody on a blog expresses their belief that the Cubs should have been involved…I know it sucks, but it happens. It’s the offseason. The fuck else are we supposed to do?
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
The FO has a decent enough track record with lottery ticket guys that I’m content to let them sign and pass on whoever they want with a fair amount of good faith.
sitrickQuote Reply
It’s not signing guys just to sign them. Chris Young is the only player signed so far this offseason that I would have liked on the Cubs. They probably have one better-than-average major league outfielder on their entire 40 man roster, so yes, they do need to sign some guys to play outfield. He would have been ideal on a short-term deal.
GBTSQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
@ Smokestack Lightning:
Yeah, I’m not sure anyone’s mind is going to change at this point. I enjoy talking through this stuff, though. I hate to admit that I do my best thinking out loud, but that’s kind of the way it works.
It’ll be interesting to see how the market changes this winter and how that affects the Cubs’ strategy going forward. There have been a couple of guys who came in right around where you might expect (Johnson, Young) and a few who have clocked in significantly over (anything the Phillies have done).
uncle daveQuote Reply
GBTS wrote:
I think you’re high by one on outfielders, unfortunately.
MylesQuote Reply
Smokestack Lightning wrote:
Talk about football, apparently.
uncle daveQuote Reply
https://twitter.com/TomLoxas/status/403923518384922625
sitrickQuote Reply
I don’t see Young as a lottery ticket. Saying he’s a lottery ticket is like saying Castro is.
Am I upset? No, but at that price and considering the shape of the outfield, I wouldn’t have minded acquiring him.
dmick89Quote Reply
Let’s talk about the real downside of not signing Young: my free agent predictions are now fucked.
Unrelated: I still can’t post pictures. Can’t you guys pin a post about posts or something?
uncle daveQuote Reply
@ uncle dave:
Dumb question, but you see the link under submit comment that says “You can add images to yoru comment by clicking here”, right?
sitrickQuote Reply
@ sitrick:
(dying laughing) nope. I’ll give it a run.
uncle daveQuote Reply
New evidence, 50 years later:[img]http://i1022.photobucket.com/albums/af346/mistah_pants/lemmy_zpsf92e9175.jpg[/img]
uncle daveQuote Reply
One of the only bloggers I make sure to read on Fangraphs is Dave Cameron and he has a good take on Chris Young which is why I wish the Cubs would’ve signed him.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/mets-land-bargain-in-chris-young/
AndrewQuote Reply
@ Andrew:
FWIW, Colin used to make fun of Cameron a lot for being kind of dumb, but I’m not sure why.
sitrickQuote Reply
sitrick wrote:
#6org
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/organizational-rankings-6-seattle/
MylesQuote Reply
@ Myles:
Oof. Okay.
sitrickQuote Reply
Cubs just named a bunch of new coaches that I am sure you guys are writing up now.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Freese ————————> Angels
Cardinals <———————- Bourjos
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
Myles wrote:
Schierholtz isn’t THAT bad………………..
GBTSQuote Reply
One other thing, Dave, you’ve mentioned the unreliability of projecting an established player three years out. I agree, it’s risky, but I’d bet everything i own that it’s still 10 ten times more reliable than projecting an upper echelon prospect who has yet to even play a full season in AA.
I’ll bet $50 that Ellsbury is better in 2016 than Baez’s best season in his career. I hope I lose the bet, but I feel it’s one I’d win 8 out of 10 times.
I think Baez is a very good prospect, but the failure rate is very high.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ Rice Cube:
Thanks, but I’m out of town so no write-up. That and laziness.
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
This.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
Berselius, why didn’t you tell us you started a website? http://releasecharlesmansonnow.blogspot.com
dmick89Quote Reply
The Cubs have a quality assurance coach? What the fuck is that?
dmick89Quote Reply
Does he just let the rest of them know when the team is good? Does he send texts out to the other coaches on a daily basis letting them know they still suck? That would be awesome.
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
Yeah, but you’re not comparing Ellsbury to Baez. You’re comparing Ellsbury to the pool of available alternatives already in the Cubs’ system. You’re not considering whether the failure rate for any specific prospect is high, but rather looking at the ability of the system as a whole to deliver talent to the big league club.
I’m guessing that Baez and Bryant wind up with more WAR than any other players currently in the system, but I’m also betting that there are significant contributions eventually made to the club by guys who are currently outside of the elite group that we’re always talking about. If you look at the 2013 roster, far and away the best player on it in WAR terms was Castillo, who was a reasonably well-regarded prospect but still (to my recollection) was a fringe top 10 guy in what was an awful farm system. Same with Junior Lake, who would have extrapolated to 2 WAR over a full season last year. He was a known prospect, but hardly elite.
If you sign a free agent, you’re talking about whether or not a single player will be worth his pay. If you fill a vacancy from within, you can fill it with whatever player you want. That makes a significant difference in how you should calculate risk for the choices you have available.
I get the reluctance to count on any one prospect to fill a position of need. There’s definitely risk there. But the notion that you can’t reliably find production from a healthy and deep farm system is…well, the concerns are a bit overwrought, honestly. Save for a small handful of guys who were signed from foreign pro leagues, every swinging dick on a big league roster came from the minors. There are a lot of guys who get burn and don’t make it, but teams with a deep pool of players and good judgement can and do get plenty of value out of their minor leaguers.
The Cubs weren’t a team with a deep pool of prospects or good judgement for a very long time, or maybe ever. (Note that P. K. Wrigley did not believe in the farm system on the basis that it was unfair to minor league owners, and refused to invest in a minor league infrastructure. This shit has been going on forever.) But they are now, and I got no problem if they take advantage of that.
uncle daveQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
He filters out the slightly irregular ballplayers. The Royals then buy them at an outlet mall outside of Kearny, Nebraska.
uncle daveQuote Reply
@ uncle dave:
I’m almost certain that Castillo was ranked 4th in the Cubs system at one point (2010 maybe), but then he stumbled and fell a bit. I think Lake was ranked close to that high at one point too. That said, I see your point about other guys filling spots, but it’s still not a convincing argument to me.
FWIW, I wasn’t comparing Baez to Ellsbury so much. They play different positions and one would never get in the way of the other so a comparison IMO is pretty useless. What I was trying to highlight was that projecting established MLB players, particularly those with 4, 5 or more years of service time, is a far easier game no matter how far out you go than it is for projecting prospects (even the higher ranked ones). The secondary point was that I think it’s a relatively safe bet that a player like Ellsbury, projected three years out, will be more valuable than a prospects who will be similarly ranked to Baez’s best season.
The implication being that while having these guys is great for the organization, the failure rate is still quite high.
I started working on something that I hope to post Saturday or Sunday depending on my health, but a top 20 prospect ranges in value two years out from 0 to 10 WAR. 10 being Mike Trout and 0 being about 20-40% of them. I use such a wide range here because I’m not finished collecting information. Realistically, between 0 and 3, maybe 3.5. Not that this is the least bit surprising. I’m sure you could probably have nailed those numbers down in a couple seconds. My guess for where two-thirds of the players fell probably would have been between 0 and 3. A bit under 3.
I’m not going to be trying to convince anyone of anything. At this point, I don’t think anything anyone says could move the needle much for anyone else here. I was just curious and wanted some actual numbers.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ dmick89:
I think Dave’s point is more that with good process and acquisition of enough depth, you increase the odds of your system in general producing useful major league talent.
The odds that Baez or Bryant or whoever specifically fails are fairly high. But If you plan your future so that you say 1 of the top 4 hits (becomes a role 6 or better player), and of your next 20-30 players in your system you get a role 5 or two, and get a surprise breakout from elsewhere in the farm that can contribute in some way, then the percentages come out more in your favor.
sitrickQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
He translates what Thoyer and Bosio say into Spanish.
I assume Renteria can speak his own Spanish.
SVBQuote Reply
@ SVB:
The Angels (I think) just named someone MLB Intelligence Coach. (dying laughing)
SVBQuote Reply
@ SVB:
I love these new coaching positions.
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
[img]http://www.glamour.com/entertainment/blogs/obsessed/2012/01/26/0126_creed-the-office_ob.jpg[/img]
Suburban kidQuote Reply
@ Suburban kid:
I wonder who will end up with the Assistant to the Manager spot
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ SVB:
Is that like a spy?
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Casper Wells —> Cubs (minor league deal)
Dave Sappelt —-> Not Cubs
apparently after passing on Wells each of the 15 times he was released last season, they just couldn’t bear to do it again.
GWQuote Reply
GWQuote Reply
also, colby lewis back to the rangers for a minor league deal + incentives
GWQuote Reply
So, Iowa is about to beat Michigan. Not the same Michigan as when I was younger, but still fun to beat Michigan.
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
Glad you and the wife and kids are having such a good time.
http://zeqps2k4t563atbs730zvzq12aw.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/The-21-Most-Awkward-Family-Photos06.jpg
Suburban kidQuote Reply
@ Suburban kid:
That family has problems.
dmick89Quote Reply
Derrick Rose has a torn meniscus, probably out for the season.
In other news, the Bulls were preemptively eliminated in the first round of the playoffs.
MylesQuote Reply
So McCann got paid.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Peralta ——-> Cardinals
Berselius22Quote Reply
Let’s not forget that even though future free agent lists look weak, there are always going to be players on bad contracts that other teams will basically let you have if you pay them. Like how if a team wanted Alexei Ramirez, they could take him if they would pay the salary.
JQuote Reply
@ Suburban kid:
Ewww.
@ Rice Cube:
This was posted at MLBTR in a summary of coaching moves. Guess I misspoke a little, the position isn’t a coach, but still…
SVBQuote Reply
@ Suburban kid:
Who’s that?
/not up on pop culture…
SVBQuote Reply
@ SVB:
Course, I don’t recognize avatars for sitrick, GW, or GBTS
SVBQuote Reply
@ SVB:
Creed from the Office.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
@ SVB:
The avatars are so small that my old man eyes have trouble with them whether I recognize them or not. Like, is your avatar a young Jerry Garcia, or is it you? I think GBTS’s is a random Cubs fan, sitrick’s is the dude from Parks and Rec, and GW’s looks like the guy from Mad Men but he wouldn’t be holding a cell phone in 1964 so it’s obviously someone really famous that I’m clueless about.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
@ Suburban kid:
I think GW’s is Tommy Carcetti. Tough to tell at this size though.
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ Berselius:
indeed.
Joe Smith —-> Angels (3/$15.5)
I thought there was a good chance the Cubs would sign him. Did not expect him to get that kind of money, though. Excuse me while I go edit my salary predictions…
GWQuote Reply
@ GW:
Yeah, you were off more on Choo than anyone other than exhoosier who put $1 million. Way to go!
dmick89Quote Reply
@ Berselius22:
apparently 4/$52 wasn’t even close. wowza. the first thing he should do is pay to have that “h” removed and put in the right place.
GWQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
assuming you meant McCann…
fantastic hitter, of course. i just thought the physical breakdown was coming sooner rather than later.
GWQuote Reply
Samardzija trade rumors are ramping up.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
new shit: http://obstructedview.net/news-and-rumors/blue-jays-talking-to-cubs-about-jeff-samardzija.html
dmick89Quote Reply