Common sense would indicate the Cubs would have significant interest in David Price this offseason. He's one of the best pitchers in baseball and he's a free agent. He won't cost the Cubs a draft pick since he was traded at midseason. He had a long working relationship with Cubs manager Joe Maddon. And the Cubs could really use another top of the rotation arm.
Lots of other people are saying it in a somewhat more official way. Buster Olney's recent column says it.
1. David Price (obviously): He is the best available starting pitcher, will probably get the most significant contract of the winter, and some rival evaluators consider the Cubs to be the heavy, heavy favorites to sign him.
Ken Rosenthal is saying it.
David Price: Two agents for free-agent starting pitchers predict that Price will sign with the Cubs. An executive who knows Price says that the Cubs are his first choice. It’s all talk until the contract is signed, particularly when the Dodgers, Giants, Cardinals and Red Sox all could be in the mix.
I'm guessing a lot of this at this point just falls into the common sense sort of thing I mentioned earlier. The Cubs will undoubtedly be talking with Price's agent assuming, perhaps as soon as tomorrow.
How much is he going to cost? The short answer is that it's going to cost a lot. The Cubs have the money though. They don't have an unlimited stockpile like the Dodgers, but they've got the money.
Steamer is projecting 5.3 fWAR for Price in 2016. Let's assume the value of the win $8.5 million and increases by $0.5 million each year.
| Year | Age | WAR |
| 2016 | 30 | 5.3 |
| 2017 | 31 | 4.8 |
| 2018 | 32 | 4.3 |
| 2019 | 33 | 3.8 |
| 2020 | 34 | 3.3 |
| 2021 | 35 | 2.8 |
| 2022 | 36 | 2.3 |
| 2023 | 37 | 1.8 |
Over 6 years, we could reasonably project 24.3 wins. Over 7 it's 26.6 and over 8 it's 28.4. Including a discount for contracts longer than 3 years that typically occur, this is what we get.
- 6 years, $209.3 million
- 7 years, $233.1 million
- 8 years, $252.5 million
I'm going to guess that those numbers are a little high. Price will turn 38 years old in that 8th year so age quickly becomes a concern for him. I would guess it's closer to 6/180, 7/200, 8/220.
If the Cubs were to add Price, they could slip Kyle Hendricks and Jason Hammel down to the 4th and 5th spots in the rotation. Suddenly, what looked like somewhat of a weakness there in the postseason becomes quite a strength for this team with Price, Jon Lester and Jake Arrieta also.
I'd hardly say the Cubs are the favorites at this point. They spent a lot of money on a starting pitcher last season and they may not be so willing to do the same thing this year. I doubt the Cubs want to have that much money tied up in two pitchers, but at the same time, it's a clear area of need for this team and there's nothing in the farm system that could step in and perform well enough right now. Pierce Johnson is the closest thing the Cubs have to a top pitching prospect and he's probably a year away.
Comments
I let him play one more year. The difference between what it would cost to keep him long-term now and if you wait a year is pretty small. That’s if he would even sign a long-term extension.
dmick89Quote Reply
I just hope Price doesn’t demand a personal first baseman or something.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
c) sign ricky nolasco
i am with dmick, i don’t see a big downside to waiting and i definitely see a downside to signing an extension now.
although, i wonder how signing someone like price this year affects the equation…
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
dmick89,
Well, if he pitches this well for two more years (unlikely), he’ll get ~$30m AAV. MLBTR estimates his arb raise this year to be ~$10m. Let’s say the following year’s arb raise is $16m.
That’s $26m for those two years, then he will be looking for 5-8 years contract at $20-$25m/year.
4/$80m might be high. But I think I would do it to secure his prime years since I don’t think I’d want him for his age 35-40 years.
JonKneeVQuote Reply
Great article, David. I predict the Cubs will get him, but I think they’ll do it for 8 years as the only way to outbid the Dodgers.
andcountingQuote Reply
The Cubs will get a new TV deal in 2020, right? Assuming they let Arrieta play out the next year or two on arbitration salaries, they could still pay Price and try to extend Arrieta with a heavily backloaded deal that pays out a lot more once the TV revenue stream opens.
PerkinsQuote Reply
He's signed through his age 31 season as it is. If we say for fun that he'd get $30 million annually on the free agent market after that, a 4-80 contract is roughly 2/26 in arbitration and then a 2/54 extension. You're paying him roughly market value. There's not a lot of savings for the Cubs in a 4/80 deal. He'll probably make $80 million over the next 4 years even if he becomes a free agent after 2017. I'd probably try for 5/80 and I know he won't sign. I don't think he'd sign 4/80 because he'd miss that window to sign a huge contract. I don't think there's any way to keep him around long-term without going all out and since he has 2 years left on his contract, I'd wait.
dmick89Quote Reply
Thanks. You’re probably right. 6 years is too short considering the market for him.
dmick89Quote Reply
I just hope Price can throw to first base. If he could teach Lester and Arrieta how to do it, it would put a million smiles on my face.
dmick89Quote Reply
It’s too bad that tv contract didn’t become available sooner. I worry that some of these teams that have these huge deals will learn they’re bad investments. I hope that’s not the case, because that could be a huge source of income for the Cubs.
dmick89Quote Reply
Re: Arrieta: the Cubs have shown a willingness to try to get these extensions signed (with Garza, with Wood, with Shark), but only if they have pretty favorable terms. Considering it has worked out with the Cubs every single time, I doubt they’d change tactics even with Arrieta being so much better than any of those 3. Also consider that Arrieta is a Borascorp guy (they sign extensions contrary to popular belief, but only at hometown PREMIUMS). I think it’s really likely that those conversations are happening right now and relatively unlikely that they’ll go anywhere.
Compounding this problem is the fact that players generally sign these contracts to secure their first big payday and the life-changing amount of money that comes with it. Arrieta is already getting that money this year – probably $11 MM in arbitration – so he has no real incentive to trade a FA year for it. Arrieta also made $3.63 MM last season, so he’s made around $5 MM in his career.
If we pencil Jake in for $11 MM this season (traditionally, arb 2 is 60% of FA value, which for Jake this year would be $25 MM AAV, so you could see a number as high as $15 [I doubt this, as there is some “smoothing” in arb figures]) and $18 MM next season, a 4/$80 contract would give him $25.5 MM AAV on the two free agent years you’re buying out. I doubt he trades the two FA years for an extra million over the first 2 (and difference between entering the market at 31 and 33). He might do something like 3/$59, but who knows whether that makes sense for the Cubs or not.
mylesQuote Reply
Price is going to be too damn expensive and too damn long. The Cubs have lots of money, but I don’t think they want to have $45 MM AAV wrapped up in 2 long contracts on old pitchers over 10-12 contract years.
mylesQuote Reply
I’d much, much prefer Heyward over Price at those numbers. Not even an argument.
mylesQuote Reply
myles,
I would too, but I honestly doubt the Cubs sign Heyward to play CF, which isn’t a bad thing. They could use Soler to trade for a top pitcher.
I doubt they sign Heyward.
dmick89Quote Reply
I doubt they sign either. I’m still of the belief that they grab 2 “pretty good” pitchers, a reliever, and a stopgap CF.
mylesQuote Reply
isn’t this already happening with the a couple of teams (the dodgers in particular)? in the last preseason, i seem to remember hearing about how a lot of the local stations simply can’t afford the massive carrying charge and are choosing to not air the games. i don’t remember hearing anything else about this so maybe it got resolved somehow (or it was just some degree of tabloid journalism trying to invent a story out of nothing) but i kinda recall reading several different sources about how the massive TV bubble is/was about to burst.
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
EnricoPallazzo,
That seems familiar. Unfortunately, if it hasn’t already burst, I think it will by the time the Cubs are eligible to sign their own tv contract.
dmick89Quote Reply
This was the Astros market at least, and the contract blew up in their face. It was a huge, huge fiasco, and probably the beginning of the end for massive carriage contracts.
mylesQuote Reply
I hope the Cubs get someone really good, but I think it’s always silly to bet on that. I also doubt they sign either of them. That does bring up a question: did the Cubs act too soon in signing Lester? I’d much, much rather have Price than Lester.
dmick89Quote Reply
It’s kind of sad in a way. When college football was out doing these huge contracts 10-20 years ago, baseball stood by and didn’t do anything. The Cubs should have already had that huge contract, but baseball seemed oblivious to what was happening around them.
dmick89Quote Reply
I wish that you could do a special MLB.tv package where you only chose one team and was able to watch all of their games without blackout restrictions. I think it could be profitable if you did it right. MLB.tv could offer the whole package for $150 (which they do now), or a Team Pass for $99. Let’s say that some portion of that revenue goes to the TV providers (since they’ll lose some revenue due to this), the rest is split between the teams and MLB, and you could even ad-serve local advertisements in the commercial because you’d have a general idea of the location of your users. If the carriage fee for, let’s say, CSN Chicago is $4, you could give them $2.5 per month per subscriber in exchange for lifting the blackout. That’s $30 of the $99 to regional networks. That leaves $69 for the other parties. I’m not sure how much of the $150 that MLB gets to keep for each package they sell, but I’m honestly very curious if the additional accounts people would sign up for would outweigh the cost of losing some $150 subs to the new $99 platform. And this all assumes this is legal and the assumptions aren’t wildly off-base (which they might be).
mylesQuote Reply
I don’t think you’d get approval from all the teams to do such a thing. Too many small market teams that are making a good profit right now and would stand to lose money.
dmick89Quote Reply
That’s a great point that I didn’t even think of. That probably kills this sort of program.
mylesQuote Reply
myles,
I agree Myles. If there was an option to only watch one team, I think more people would subscribe. With the NFL Ticket, the cost is outrageous. I only watch Bears games so if they had just a “one team” option for half the price, I would get it. MLB.tv actually has great value considering you get 10 times the games than NFL ticket for half the price. I subscribe to MLB.tv but I won’t get the NFL ticket. Way too expensive in my opinion. But if they had a Team Pass for half the price, I would probably do it.
MuckerQuote Reply
I believe the Cubs will have Price wrapped up before Thanksgiving. They’ll get Arrieta done when they can, if that’s in two years so be it. They are going to play this to win the World Series starting next year, because they’ve gotten pretty good indication that they can. They are going to go for it.
I think they’ll end up trading Castro for the type of kick around centerfielder that can play passable enough until either BM or AM are up to the chance. Nothing special but at least useful, I’d imagine with a defensive focus.
SSQuote Reply
So most would agree that Heyward would be the better acquisition than Price. Let’s say they did sign Heyward and are looking to trade Soler+ for a pitcher.
What do you think a Soler package gets without adding in other high end prospects? I don’t think a Soler package gets you Sonny Gray.
JonKneeVQuote Reply
i would avoid signing him arrieta all costs based on this analysis that i just came across:
“Barring some semi-miraculous, Cliff Lee-style evaporation of his walk rate, Arrieta doesn’t seem to have much of a future as a major-league starter. He’s had more success since joining the Cubs, but even the quality starts look to be fairly smoke and mirrors, fueled by a low BABIP and lofty aspirations. Most everyone agrees he’s got the stuff to succeed as a late-inning reliever, but that last quote above raises questions for me about makeup, and whether or not he has the personality that can handle blowing an eighth or ninth inning lead without taking it with him into his next appearance.
As far as next season goes, his solid superficial numbers since the trade might earn him a few starts next season, especially if Theo and Company decide to shoot for 2015 instead of 2014. Whenever the organization decides to really try to contend, however, you’d have to think Arrieta would fall into a bullpen/6th starter role, with the potential to earn more high-leverage late-inning work as the year progresses.”
Can’t Castro be that kick around centerfielder? also, i am blanking on who AM is. (should it say AA?)
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
RynoQuote Reply
SS,
You really think they sign him by Thanksgiving? I’d be surprised if Price signs before mid-December.
dmick89Quote Reply
I don’t think Soler has as much value in a trade as people would like. His defense was pretty bad last year according to DRS and UZR. It was also pretty bad in my personal opinion. Solar definitely doesn’t get you Gray, but Soler and Baez is probably where that discussion starts.
dmick89Quote Reply
It might be worth noting that the Cubs’ success this season is sure to have bumped ticket prices up a little earlier than expected. They can pretty much charge whatever they want given the improvements in place for the ballpark and the team playing in it.
andcountingQuote Reply
I think Castro could be that guy too and I do think he meant AA. Not sure why this comment got flagged. Sorry about that.
dmick89Quote Reply
That’s a good point. We also might be underestimating their projected payroll. I’ve been thinking upwards of $150 million, but it’s entirely possible they’re thinking higher than that. They probably should be.
dmick89Quote Reply
Cubs home attendance this year was 2,959,812. That is without the bleachers for the first month and without the right field bleachers for the first 3 months.
2008 set the attendance record at 3.3 million. Using that same figure (it could be more) and they raise the average ticket price by $5, that’s another $16.5m in revenue.
JonKneeVQuote Reply
It’s actually a lot more than that. If you had 500,000 extra attendees to the game, you are going to make way more in concessions/beer/gear than you would with any price increase (though that will obviously help). If the average person buys half a hot dog ($3 per person for food), half a beer ($5 per person for drink), and a fifth of a ballcap ($4 per person for gear), that’s an extra $12 per person in revenue. Those are all low estimates, ESPECIALLY for the marginal fan that attends (which I guarantee spends more per attendance than a durable fan), but that’s another $6 million in revenue right there. It doesn’t even include parking, or programs, or anything like that.
MylesQuote Reply
Personally, I’d be surprised if the Cubs don’t get at 3.2 million this season. I bet it’ll be closer to 3.35 million.
MylesQuote Reply
I just realized that a bunch of people were so angry about the scoreboards this time last year. That’s hilarious to me.
MylesQuote Reply
Regarding Soler, doesn’t his trade value also decrease because of his contract? He can opt out in a couple of years right? Or am I thinking of somebody else’s contract?
MuckerQuote Reply
Soler can opt out, but he’s still under club control until he reaches 6 years of service time.
dmick89Quote Reply
Yeah, Soler can opt into arbitration instead of taking the guaranteed values in his contract. It doesn’t figure to matter all that much, unless Soler becomes so awesome that he’d make a ton more in arbitration. I’d hope everyone realizes that every club would greatly desire that outcome.
MylesQuote Reply
Cubs claim RP Ryan Cook from Boston. Cubs 40 man is at 30. Cook probably replaces Tommy Hunter.
JonKneeVQuote Reply
It was hilarious then. All the outrage from Cubs fans over the years about the improvements made to Wrigley has been funny.
dmick89Quote Reply
I’ll wager you a bologna sandwich Cook gets waivered by the Cubs in the next 200 hours.
MylesQuote Reply
Cook is worth taking a shot on. I doubt he makes the MLB club and it wouldn’t surprise me to see him released before too long anyway. No risk.
dmick89Quote Reply
Myles,
Showing off those deep pockets by risking a premium sandwich like that.
dmick89Quote Reply
Only the finest cuts of pork sausage containing cubes of lard in my stately manse.
MylesQuote Reply
Daniel Murphy just got a qualifying offer. He now has no value whatsoever on the free agent market.
dmick89Quote Reply
Colby Rasmus just got a qualifying offer. Either the Astros made an uh-oh or the FA is going to be wayyyy more expensive then we think it is.
MylesQuote Reply
The new CBA needs to get here quick. This QA-draft pick compensation bullshit is ruining free agency.
JonKneeVQuote Reply
Myles,
I could see Rasmus getting a 2 or 3 year deal. I just can’t see Murphy topping $15.8 million even over 2 years. I wouldn’t want the Cubs to pay Murphy $15 million over 2 years and it has nothing to do with him being a homophobe.
As expected, Fowler was given a qualifying offer.
dmick89Quote Reply
You guys see this?
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/11/2015-16-top-50-mlb-free-agents-with-predictions.html
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Rice Cube,
I’m thinking the contracts work out ok but the destinations are….strange.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Rice Cube,
Yeah, but to be fair, it’s a damn near impossible task to predict that many free agents.
If those figures are right, and off the top of my head most look OK, I think I’d go with Zimmerman and Cueto combined over Price alone. Also, if the Cubs go with Price over Heyward with Price costing more, I’ll be pretty disappointed. As Myles said, there’s no argument about which of the two is better. If it’s the same cost, the easy answer is Heyward.
dmick89Quote Reply
Another thing, Price + Lackey for about $260 million and Zimmerman + Cueto for less than $250 million. I’d prefer the latter if those estimates are accurate.
dmick89Quote Reply
So Dave Martinez is interviewing for the Dodgers manager position.
http://mlb.nbcsports.com/2015/11/07/dodgers-to-interview-dave-martinez-for-manager-job/
PerkinsQuote Reply
Perkins,
Maybe that means David Ross can be player/Bench Coach during double-headers and just Bench Coach the rest of the year.
dmick89Quote Reply
Chris Davis to the Cardinals? Upton to the Natinals? (dying laughing), yeah, I’d say those are some strange spots.
Looks like MLBTR is using an antifragility strategy to separate themselves in the prediction pool.
As far as Price to the Cubes… just can’t see it. Theo loves roster flexibility, payroll flexibility. This would essentially kill the latter. Trades, mid-tier signings seem far more like this FO’s speed.
Unless we’re way underestimating the kind of payroll Ricketts is prepared to bear…
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=27844
This would be a rather disappointing offseason (only top 50 signing predicted to be Dexter Fowler).
dmick89Quote Reply
This is the key. I’m thinking $150 million, which leaves them quite a bit to spend right now. That could be a bit high or it could be quite low. I could see anywhere between $130 million to $175 million.
If the payroll is $150 million, we’ll see a nice signing or two (possibly both of Zimmerman and Cueto if those contract estimates are good). If it’s $175 million, I think David Price or Jason Heyward is wearing a Cubs uniform next season. And then some more goodies to go along with that.
dmick89Quote Reply
If the Cubs don’t have the money to go after Price, it will be disappointing because they should have just waited a year and passed on Jon Lester. Considering that everyone knew this year’s free agent crop was going to be excellent and way better than the previous year or the following year, the only reason you should sign someone like Lester is if you’re going to be willing to add to it in this free agency group. It would be poor execution by the front office and I’m not going to bet money on that being the case. I think they’ll sign a couple of the higher ranked free agents. Probably not David Price though.
dmick89Quote Reply
Myles,
Does Al Yellon deliver it? Because that would be cool. Come to think of it, maybe not.
MeQuote Reply
Well, and that could be the case. It appears even Gordo, who has been beating the Cubs are broke/cheap/Tanaka savings drum for a long time now, is suddenly joining the chorus of those who think playoff revenue means the Cubs are flush with the requisite bucks to land a Price +.
But if that is what we’re looking at, I want Heyward before anything else.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
Agreed. I think everyone but Al Yellon agrees on that. As much as I’d like Heyward, I think this team will put Price ahead of Heyward. I kind of hope I’m wrong. I doubt the Cubs end up getting either of them, but Heyward is definitely the safer choice. You could trade Soler+ to get a good starting pitcher. They could even trade Soler + Baez if they wanted to.
dmick89Quote Reply
Yeah, I’d pay extra for Yellon to not deliver it.
dmick89Quote Reply
Probably, and I hope we’re wrong too. Then again, if this FO puts Price ahead of Heyward value-wise, it might behoove us to lend them a bit of trust in the matter, as there is something to be said for a battle-tested, beast-laden pitching staff for the next 2-3 seasons and a young, mostly cost-controlled lineup that beats the living shit out of the ball. Just adding Price is the straightest road to that. Going trade and shopping mid-tier would require a lot more moving pieces and potentially more added risk just to get the team to the same relative outlook.
Of course, they could solve everything and add Heyward and Price.
At which point head ————–> explode
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
The other downfall of trading Soler/Baez is that if one of those guys becomes a great player, there’s no way any trade ends up being a good one for the Cubs. That could end up looking really, really bad.
Another thing, Price doesn’t cost them a draft pick. Heyward would. Heyward would give that extra pick to their rival so that’s got to be a consideration too.
dmick89Quote Reply
(dying laughing) at MLBTR’s phrasing.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
I also think MLBTR missed the point of what Hoyer was saying. hoyer said something along the lines of wanting a top pitcher and pitchers of all levels. MLBTR thought he meant that Hoyer wanted a top pitcher and then some bad ones to add to the back of the rotation. What I’m pretty sure he meant is that he wanted an elite pitcher and talented young arms (probably acquired through a trade) that would be in the minor leagues.
dmick89Quote Reply
A good point. I keep forgetting the Cubs know how to draft now, (dying laughing). And so losing a pick actually means something these days.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
I totally get your point, but having the benefit of hindsight, I wouldn’t trade the 2015 season for anything (short of a guaranteed world series). It was the most fun I’ve had watching the Cubs in my whole life.
Re: price vs heyward…I definitely agree that heyward is a much safer/better/smarter option in the sense that he’s a better player, but if either baez or castro can play CF for a year, I gotta go with Price. I’d much rather roll the dice on a good pitcher plus castro/baez in 2016 and then mckinney or whoever after that versus a guaranteed great CF coupled with stopgap solutions in the rotation.
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
EnricoPallazzo,
I don’t think they could have just assumed that Price wouldn’t sign an extension with whatever team he ended up on that year (DET or TOR). Since they had the money, and since they’ve always said they would spend every dollar allotted to them for the budget that year until the business folks gave them more (aside from the rollover Tanaka funds), I think the Lester signing was fine and they’d just play it by ear this offseason. It seems reasonable to me that they’ve got a board and put a dollar amount for each guy, so if they don’t get that guy, it’s because they didn’t value him that high etc.
I’d be okay with Heyward/Price and then some, by the way.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
If MLBTR’s projections are correct—I would much rather have an older Grienke for 6@$26M/year than Price for 7@$31M/year. Draft picks be damned, Grienke is a better hitter and a comparable pitcher and saves $5M/year. Is a draft pick worth $5M a year?
Funny thing—it would actually be cheaper per year for the next three years for Grienke + Heyward ($46M) than Price + Lackey ($48M)—though giving up two on the comp pick ledger does make me think there is not a chance in hell. Too bad.
ceruleanQuote Reply
Also, For those suggesting that the Cubs would stay away from Heyward so Cardinals don’t get a draft pick—this is ridiculous. The Cardinals are a) keeping Heyward or b) getting a draft pick. I think Thoyer would rather STL get a draft pick than Heyward for all of his prime years.
ceruleanQuote Reply
I just got a chance to read Hoyer’s words on the QO. I am happy to hear that losing their late pick is not going to be a factor in their decisions on FA.
A question on the loss of draft picks: Say they signed two FAs and lose two picks, would it be the first and second round or would it be the first round and their compensation pick in the sandwich round from Fowler?
ceruleanQuote Reply
I wouldn’t trade 2015 either and I’m not buying that the Cubs won’t at least try to land one of the best free agents available. As RC said, they’ll have their board and dollar figures and that’s all you can ask. I’m just saying if it turns out that they don’t have the money to spend because they spent it last year on Lester (I don’t think that’s the case), then you’ve got to question the wisdom (at the time) of investing that kind of money in Lester as opposed to waiting for a year for a better free agent crop.
dmick89Quote Reply
cerulean,
First 2 rounds.
dmick89Quote Reply
I agree that it shouldn’t be a deterrent, but it should be a consideration in that, for example, Price doesn’t cost a draft pick whereas Heyward does. I still think Heyward comes out ahead if you do the math on that one, but in this particular case, it’s not just one of looking at the dollars spent.
I think a few years back someone did the math and a first round pick was worth about $15-20 million or something. Add on some inflation at the baseball rate and maybe $20-25 million or so now. Since the Cubs pick near the bottom of the 1st, it’s going to be well below that.
dmick89Quote Reply
Yeah I recall reading the same thing and I’m trying to remember if that dollar value was averaged over the entire first round. Top 3 picks must be well over $20m…after that it’s gotta decline pretty fucking fast. Is the 28th pick worth $20m? I gotta say no. This is based on absolutely zero research though.
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
With the news of the Oscar Meyer plant/HQ in Madison closing, my mother told me that when my grandmother lived in Madison during WW2 there was fear that the Germans would attack/sabotage the OM plant to demoralize the US by removing their valuable bologna supply.
berseliusQuote Reply
Seems the chatter is picking up a bit about a return of Spellcheck. The consternation in some circles over this is kinda baffling. As long as he’s not the Big Move and it’s a price that makes sense he could be a quality addition.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
Though now that I look at a little more closely, I wonder if Samardzija won’t just accept his QO and reenter the market a year from now when it’ll be just him and Strasburg.
Otoh, he would have to pitch for the White Sox again.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
I read that his mechanics had changed with the Sox so he might be happy to get out of there.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
EnricoPallazzo,
http://www.baseballamerica.com/draft/2015-mlb-draft-slots/
28th slot this past draft was worth a shade under $2MM. I imagine there’s some inflation for 2016, but it should be around there.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Rice Cube,
I think he meant surplus value, but maybe I’m wrong. I think the article that I remember reading was on Baseball Analysts. Not sure if they’re still around or not.
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89,
Ah right, my bad. Haha. That $2mm slot could stretch pretty far though, but this FO seems very good at making good selections at every spot so it may not matter.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
His pitch selection changed as well. Way fewer sinkers and more cutters. Velocity seems pretty good, but he got a lot fewer strikeouts.
A change in mechanics might explain the less effective and less used fastballs, and if he couldn’t set up his splitter properly, that could explain the drop in strikeouts. Also have to imagine he could have had less confidence in the sinker with the Sox defense behind him.
PerkinsQuote Reply
Samardzija scares me unless it’s a 2-3 year deal. I want no part of him at 5 years.
dmick89Quote Reply
I guess 5/85 isn’t so bad given the value of the win today. That’s a lot of years for someone who is coming off just an OK season.
dmick89Quote Reply
berseliusQuote Reply
(dying laughing), wow does bWAR hate Shark.
berseliusQuote Reply
I only looked at fWAR. I’m not sure why there’s always been this big discrepancy for F7 using bWAR. Don’t think WARP likes him either IIRC. Or at least it didn’t. Not sure what BPro is using for WARP these days for pitchers.
dmick89Quote Reply
I have it on good authority that Samardzija once took advantage of bWAR’s little sister.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
it’s slightly misleading because they split up his 2014 season into a row for each team, but still.
berseliusQuote Reply
What’s the implication of the supposed “mechanics change” — that the White Sox made him do it and it backfired, which can be re-corrected by Bosio? Or that it happened out of age/laziness/random happenstance?
Shouldn’t the concern be that as an older pitcher, changes like that tend to stick and there may be no going back?
Suburban kidQuote Reply
Suburban kid,
I think there were also concerns that the White Sox had Samardzija try and throw more cutters in favor of fewer sinkers. I’m sure part of the “Bosio” effect would be for Jeff to get back to being more of a sinker/slider pitcher, with the Cutter being more of a 4th or 5th pitch.
MillertimeQuote Reply
Re: Samardzija… when he had his great game at the end of the year, he gave credit to almost everyone except Don Cooper. Reports on the Score (take with a grain of salt or several) were that the two people very much disliked each other. The end of the year, Jeff instead practiced with someone else. I forget who.
MylesQuote Reply
Apparently the Cubs are one of the last 7 teams in the Byung-ho Park sweepstakes. My personal theory is that the Cubs are such a bad fit for him that no national baseball writer has bothered to say “of course the Cubs didn’t win the post on him,” but some people are starting to think the Cubs won it.
A short primer on Park: he’s a RH first baseman that can play no other position and has nowhere he could play with the Cubs unless they fit him with magic shoes for the outfield or they move to the American League.
MylesQuote Reply
Those are the parameters I have in mind. I’m assuming he wants to rebuild value on a short deal. Though there is that pesky draft pick issue again if the Cubs do pursue.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
Myles,
Odd if true.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
It appears it was the Twins.
Ftr, I doubt the Cubs were ever really in it.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
Definitely.
MylesQuote Reply
So Blaine Gabbert…
It’s one game against a bad defense and I fully expect him to look like the real Blaine Gabbert when teams remember his shortcomings with pressure/pocket movement, but he looked better than I thought he was capable of. I mean, he made some elite throws.
RynoQuote Reply
Ryno,
Didn’t work. No new shit.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
Suburban kid,
RynoQuote Reply
Ryno,
This might have been my favorite:
https://twitter.com/McDraft2/status/663747121493975040
RynoQuote Reply
Man, listen: https://twitter.com/McDraft2/status/663749988946694144
RynoQuote Reply
Ryno,
Don’t tell me what to do.
berseliusQuote Reply
I’d write something right now, but my take machine is coming up ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
berseliusQuote Reply
berselius,
LSA
RynoQuote Reply
Probably Sosa’s last HOF ballot. That makes me sad.
MillertimeQuote Reply
RIP Tommy Hanson
dmick89Quote Reply
That’s crazy about Tommy Hanson. Really sucks.
MylesQuote Reply
Apparently the Reds are shopping Chapman, Phillips, et al.
What say you about Chapman, kids? Want or not want?
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
RynoQuote Reply
Solid pass. Chapman is generationally excellent, but he’ll cost way, way too much. The conversation probably starts at Baez and gets more painful.
MylesQuote Reply
Smokestack Lightning,
I’ve always wanted to see what he’d be like as a starter but I think that ship has sailed.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
The first comments on the MLBTR post where I first read the news are shockingly hilarious.
The post and the headline were apparently updated.
ceruleanQuote Reply
What about doing one of those opt-outs on a deal for Price? Seems to me like a good way to get him on a 3-4 year deal, kinda like Grienke, then let him move on.
Nate the old recalcitrant one from a long time agoQuote Reply
Nate the old recalcitrant one from a long time ago,
I’d assume an opt-out clause would be included.
dmick89Quote Reply
Smokestack Lightning,
I want, but probably not at what it would cost. I think O’Day would be a really good investment though.
dmick89Quote Reply
Cardinals:
Alex Reyes ———–> Suspended 50 games
Lance Lynn ————> Tommy John surgery
Cardinals Devil Magic ———–> backfiring
JonKneeVQuote Reply
That Reyes suspension is nonsense though. I feel bad for the guy. MLB cares more about marijuana than driving drunk.
dmick89Quote Reply
JonKneeV,
Next year they’ll only win 98 games!
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
If he’d driven drunk, the Cardinals would have honored him with a uniform patch.
PerkinsQuote Reply
Only if he killed someone else too.
berseliusQuote Reply
I’m amazed at the pass the Cardinals got for using those stupid OT patches. A normal organization that loses two players within 8 years to self-inflicted drunk driving incidents might quietly reassess its instruction at all levels and stress responsible decision making.
Instead they doubled down on it and even in the NLDS the national announcers were calling his death tragic. Fuck that. His girlfriend’s death was tragic. Taveras’s own death was well-deserved.
PerkinsQuote Reply
Though I should point out that I lost a friend to a drunk driver and have zero sympathy for anyone who makes that choice.
PerkinsQuote Reply
Perkins,
Tavares’s death is tragic because of his age. It’s not tragic because of the cause of death. His girlfriend’s death is just tragic, though if we’re being honest, what the fuck was she doing getting into the car in the first place?
dmick89Quote Reply
Perkins,
I am sorry to hear about your friend. Death is a miserable business. But I feel strongly that drunk driving is more a failure of our society than the individual. Driving requires people to make good choices almost all the time. People do not always make good choice, and poor choices tend to cascade. Therefore, as soon as people do not need to drive, it should be very difficult to get permission to drive—to the point of near impossibility. The driverless car cannot come soon enough.
I feel this way about guns too. We need to be smart enough to recognize where we are stupid, because everything is a tradeoff. But, unlike cars, guns are a God-given right because that technology existed when our forefathers penned the Constitution—even though they were a very different kind of gun.
ceruleanQuote Reply
As relates to driving, I like the German model that necessitates a lot of driving in all manner of weather conditions and types of roads prior to sitting for the license, and then a very difficult exam to obtain the license. Operating a large vehicle around a bunch of others doing the same (and pedestrians) is a responsibility, and too many people don’t treat it as such. However, I refuse to treat drunk driving as a societal failure. It’s a personal decision. If you want to get sloppily drunk, then that’s your choice. But plan your exit strategy in advance while you’re still with it.
As pertains to weapons, I’d say that by virtue of being free people, we have the right to bear arms, and that the founders’ intent was to make sure that enough of the populace was armed so as to make disenfranchisement difficult or impossible. The second amendment is essentially a check on government. That said, weapons are tools for hunting people and other living things, so it’s reasonable to limit or deny access to them based on conditions that involve having broken the social contract or being unable to uphold it (thinking felonies and mental illness here). Owning and using a weapon is a tremendous responsibility, and the types of people who open carry rifles into Chipotle for shits and giggles make rational and responsible gun owners look bad by association.
PerkinsQuote Reply
Yeah, I’m not for blaming the victim, but definitely a poor choice on her part to get in the car with him.
PerkinsQuote Reply
Perkins,
I’m with you on gun ownership, but I’d add that the NRA makes rational and responsible gun owners look bad too.
I don’t own any guns. Never have and never will, but I still support people’s right to own them. I believe there should be much greater restrictions placed on tbem and they shouldn’t be as easy to acquire as they currently are.
dmick89Quote Reply
Perkins,
I agree with the spirit and the letter of most of what you said, save for these two things:
The second amendment as a check on the government ended with WWII. But it certainly *was* part of its purpose.
As for personal choice versus systemic societal failure, our disagreement here is probably more nuanced than it appears. Yes, it is a personal choice for an impaired individual to get behind a wheel of a car, but it is not a rational choice. We do hold these individuals responsible for their actions, and the penalties are steep, but it does not change the impaired judgment *at the time*. That is where the societal failure comes into play. In some sense, expecting individuals to plan not to drive is like expecting a teenager to remain abstinent to avoid STDs and unwanted pregnancy. We cannot be trusted on our own.
ceruleanQuote Reply
dmick89,
Yeah, the NRA leadership is somewhere between “nuts” and “bugfuck insane.” I was really happy about a year ago when they briefly made a statement against those nutbars who were open carrying into restaurants. And then crushed when they quickly retracted it because various individuals/groups threatened to cut off support of the NRA.
Most of the others I know who are either in the NRA or enjoy/own weapons agree with that and are pretty rational with respect to reasonable restrictions on ownership. My issue is mainly that a lot of the people making gun control laws are themselves unfamiliar with or afraid of guns. So they make dumbass laws like the magazine size restriction in New York, or assault weapon bans, or crap like that, rather than focusing on keeping them out of the hands of criminals and the insane. Not to mention that effective policing of neighborhoods with lots of illegal guns would probably require more police and consequently more taxes. So they generally don’t want to do that.
PerkinsQuote Reply
Ah, that’s where I disagree. I generally think that if you treat people like adults (to include consequences for failure), then they will act like adults. You’re always going to have some who don’t act rationally or in accordance with laws, and the ones who break the law should be punished. At any rate, living in a free society necessitates that those decisions are allowed to be made at the lowest level possible.
PerkinsQuote Reply
I think it was GW who linked this several years ago, but here’s something Gaius Marius wrote about guns awhile back. It’s a good read. http://declineandfallofwesterncivilization.blogspot.com/2008/06/high-court-asserts-american-individual.html
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89,
That’s really good stuff. A much more articulate summation of my beliefs on the matter, which is to be expected since it’s gm.
PerkinsQuote Reply
RynoQuote Reply
Perkins,
But that is a pernicious lie—everybody will fuck up. We cannot be trusted to be perfect. That is the truth. If we hold each other to account, the probability of fuck up is diminished, but not entirely avoidable. Then the question is, what kind of account? That’s an implementation detail, where lots of imps and demons convalesce. Right now, regarding guns, all of our accounting favors the side of sport/hunting, self-defense, and in the event of a zombie/government/zombie-government apocalypse.
The first case I would say is a legitimate use, one that actually has benefits, especially given the lack of natural predators. The second case is false in a stable society—you are more likely to have yourself our your loved ones die by violence if you own a gun. And in the third case, to Godwin this properly, what if all the Jews had guns? I don’t know the answer, but I have the suspicion that if our government was to turn against us, we are all fucked. The game theorist in me discounts this scenario for that reason.
Meanwhile, the penalties society bears for this accounting is more violent crime with more bodybags filled, and thus more criminals in prison. We can’t predict the future, but we can look at the probabilities and costs/benefits of these details. And looking at that, I am against handguns (the case 2 argument) and more interesting weapons (the case 3 argument). Tax them, and have the money transfered to the victims of gun violence. Enstill a favorable buy back program. Put in background checks and licenses to limit hoarding. Something.
But yeah, I think your views are reasonable, even more reasonable mine, but only because reason fails. (dying laughing)
ceruleanQuote Reply
To clarify—WWI and WWII saw a fundamental shift in the types of weapons a government can amass, and a gun won’t help in the doomsday scenario, rendering that argument void in my mind. Should individuals have the right to nuclear weapons?
ceruleanQuote Reply
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun
I believe pretty much exactly this.
MylesQuote Reply
A gun won’t help much in a doomsday scenario, but if the government is using nukes on our own soil, then nearly everybody dies anyway. The point is that it is better for a free people to have the opportunity to go out on their feet than on their knees, and that the (relatively) small (compared to other causes of death) death toll from firearms is a worthwhile price to pay in order to maintain a free society. Fortunately, the founding fathers were smart enough not to say “you have the right to bear arms, but only for sport.”
Something worth noting is that violent crime in the US has been steadily declining since the early 90s, and is lower than in most of the world. Something that irritates me is when people point to gun crime as though it is distinct from overall violent crime. A gun is a tool, one meant for hunting humans and other living things. But like fire, it’s just a tool. In responsible hands, it’s a good thing; in irresponsible hands, a dangerous thing. But the weapon itself lacks agency.
In an ideal world, the NRA’s main mission would be educating young citizens on responsible gun use and ownership, rather than acting like a bunch of nutbars and preventing any reasonable restrictions on ownership due to the slippery slope argument. I know that whenever I have kids, I intend to expose them to weapons at a relatively young age for exactly that reason. It’s a huge responsibility, but people will always fear what they don’t understand.
Ultimately it probably comes down to one’s view of the government and its role in daily life. Government is simply an aggregation of people, and thus subject to the same motivations, prejudices, and problems that individuals or any other groups of people have. Except with the difference that government is entrusted with the legitimate use of violence. A well regulated militia serves as one (though not the only) check on that body’s authority. Even if the militia is guaranteed to lose in the end, the government would have to be sufficiently shameless to have the appetite for a fight. And if there’s one thing that the Iraq and Afghanistan insurgencies have taught us, it’s that a low-tech insurgency can be hell on a governing power, because the power to destroy is not the power to control. You need boots on ground.
The other thing worth noting about an end of days scenario is that officers of the government (including military officers and enlisted personnel) swear an oath to the Constitution, and as such would be legally obligated to arrest and remove from power someone who would subvert it. Knowing that they would have a large amount of armed irregulars supporting them in such an effort would be a boon and an encouragement to act in accordance with the oath.
PerkinsQuote Reply
That’s a great article. Thanks for sharing it.
dmick89Quote Reply
Great article, myles. Thanks for sharing. A well–balanced perspective.
PerkinsQuote Reply
Because if the last 70 years have taught us anything, it’s that armed resistance is completely ineffectual without the backing of a nuclear arsenal.
GWQuote Reply
I don’t know much about the NRA, but I suspect they have a cynical (i.e. realistic) take on the politics. Give an inch, and you might as well pack it in. Just ask the group huddled 30 yards away from any given building in the snow exhaling water vapor from their e-cigarettes.
GWQuote Reply
Perkins,
Isn’t that an argument for eliminating guns? Where is the threat?
Anyway, I don’t think guns could be eliminated—but Congress can progressively tax the hell out of them, maybe require training and yearly recertification, while at the same time, offering generous refunds on guns to owners who just can’t justify the cost. And make the taxes steeper for high-density areas.
The solution to a negative externality is almost never a ban—it’s a tax to help rectify the market failure. But I have little faith in that happening.
ceruleanQuote Reply
If the shock and awe of the US included the use nuclear weapons to perform genocide, an armed resistance is futile. The ill-conceived liberation wars in areas where there is no effective rule of law and no one really wanted us there are not analogous to the US. If this were Iraq or Afghanistan—we should all own guns.
ceruleanQuote Reply
Speaking of guns, any chance of the Cubs trading some of their young offensive weapons for a young flamethrower?
ceruleanQuote Reply
Would be more like suicide if they were to just use nukes all over the country. Much more likely we’d see targeted chemical attacks and that’s proven to be ineffective in Syria in very recent times.
dmick89Quote Reply
cerulean,
Sonny Gray. I’m hoping the Cubs acquire him even though it will cost a whole lot.
dmick89Quote Reply
berseliusQuote Reply
(dying laughing)
dmick89Quote Reply
I hate to interrupt your discourse but it sounds like the Braves are trying to trade Andrelton.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
cerulean,
It’s only an argument against guns if you accept the proposition that the only legitimate use of them is for self-defense against crime, which I don’t. There are a lot of fine reasons to own and use them.
As to the Cubs’ acquisition of young guns, I wonder if the Mets would be amenable to a trade. They need offense and have pitching, so on the surface it makes sense. I’m less keen on Gray inasmuch as he doesn’t throw that hard and bWAR is much kinder to him than fWAR. That and I assume Billy Beane will want a lot, especially given how the Russell trade worked out for him.
PerkinsQuote Reply
Seeing that an overdose is one of the possible causes of death for Tommy Hanson, which would be very sad indeed.
PerkinsQuote Reply
Despite what Beane has said, he would probably be pursuaded to that trade by dangling Russell and McKinney. That’s not happening.
ceruleanQuote Reply
Perkins,
I have wondered if Harvey might be available for trade after the innings drama and injury. Still cost a shitton.
ceruleanQuote Reply
When I hear Theo say “we’ll have to get creative” to sign 2 people, I think of two things:
a) It wasn’t long ago when Theo said he’d never talk about finances because he didn’t want to give anything away. What happened to that?
b) A trade is definitely happening if the Cubs get two free agents, maybe even if they only get one.
MylesQuote Reply
cerulean,
Harvey’s arbitration eligible in 2016, right? I have to think the discussion starts at Baez and McKinney. Maybe that’s not even enough to get the Mets to the table.
PerkinsQuote Reply
I was thinking Baez and Almora. I’d make the trade
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89,
I’ll grant that Gray would probably thrive with the Cubs’ infield defense. He doesn’t give up a ton of home runs either, but I wish he had a higher K%.
I’d probably do Baez and Almora for Gray as well.
PerkinsQuote Reply
Oakland wouldn’t.
MylesQuote Reply
Myles,
They probably wouldn’t just for those two, but the Cubs can add another player or two like Pierce Johnson.
If the Cubs aren’t going to spend money this offseason (which I’m far from convinced they won’t), they’re going to have to go after a top starter in a trade and you may as well go after someone as young as Gray.
dmick89Quote Reply
There’s the quote from Theo. I take that to mean if they go out and sign someone like David Price, they’ve probably also got to shed a bit of payroll (sorry Castro). If they want to go out and sign David Price and Jordan Zimmerman, they’ve got to get really creative (sorry Castro and Montero). They’d still have to add a CF and probably a reliever along with those acquisitions.
I think we’ve all assumed either Castro or Baez would be dealt this season since they haven’t seemed interested in trying Baez in CF for some reason.
dmick89Quote Reply
RynoQuote Reply
Thinking about the Mets—someone who is not the caliber of Gray or Harvey but still has potential is Zack Wheeler. Coming off Tommy John may give the Mets pause because he could be really great and slotted at the four or five is a low-pressure situation where innings limits shouldn’t be much of an issue—so if he does have a season like Harvey did this year, they would have sold low.
As we know all too well, a great rotation in paper doesn’t always come to be, so having depth can be crucial. But what good is an extended rotation without quality bats in the lineup? At what point is the wasted value of players not getting action worth the insurance of having them on the bench?
ceruleanQuote Reply
Ryno,
That may be the finest compression of my words I have ever read.
ceruleanQuote Reply
I’m not sure the Mets and Cubs match up all that well in a trade. The Mets are looking for impact bats while the Cubs are looking for impact arms. The thing is, the Mets want MLB bats. They’re not going to be too terribly interested in anything other than what the Cubs have at the MLB level and the Cubs won’t be trading any of that with the possible exceptions being Javier Baez and Starlin Castro. Neither of them can be counted on to be an impact bat.
dmick89Quote Reply
cerulean,
I think you did that intentionally. The comment sang to me like a siren.
RynoQuote Reply
dmick89,
I’m thinking that they will get a free agent pitcher in the Price–Zimmerman range, then go for a young pitcher as well. Though signing Heyward and making a play for Sonny Gray would make me very happy. Three of Baez, Soler, McKinney, Almora, or Vogelbach should get a conversation started, though Gray is probably too young, good, and cheap for Beane to part with this off-season. Then again, maybe visions of Josh Donaldson dance in his head.
ceruleanQuote Reply
If the Cubs did sign Heyward, then a Soler, Baez, Almora package should get a deal done for Gray. If it doesn’t, oh well. That’s a lot of surplus value the Cubs would be sending the A’s way. You’d still need a CF, but Span or Fowler would work and are relatively cheap all things considered.
dmick89Quote Reply
Cubs interested in trade for Jackie Bradley, Jr. according to Bleacher Report. Don’t really know why though. He had a good 2nd half but he can’t be an upgrade over Austin Jackson. Why not just re-sign Jackson and keep the pieces for a pitcher trade? Or is Bradley, Jr. that good?
MuckerQuote Reply
shhhh…we don’t want ChicagoBearJew to feel the need to come back here to defend himself (jabroni)
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
I could see Bradley being a 20 HR guy with good defense in CF. There’s a lot of risk so I wouldn’t want to give up a huge package to get him, but I can see why they’re interested.
dmick89Quote Reply
RynoQuote Reply
Poll question: The Cubs’ Big 5 rookies last year combined for 1930 PA, 1708 AB, 90 2B, 8 3B, 66 HR, 191 BB, 570 SO, and a weighted average of 112 OPS+.
Over/under on each of these numbers next year:
3000 PA, 112 weighted average OPS+
MylesQuote Reply
Under
Over
berseliusQuote Reply
Myles,
I’d say under on both. I’d automatically take the under on any group of five players combining for 3000 PA, and since you’re going to see more Russell in that mix in 2016, the OPS+ will likely go down as well.
Not that I’m at all bearish on the lineup for next season. It just seems like you’re going to dilute Bryant’s contribution, and you might see Schwarber scuffle at some point as the league adjusts to him.
uncle daveQuote Reply
Myles,
under for sure on the PAs since i think there is a decent chance that either baez or soler (or both) will not be in a cubs uniform next year.
but fuck it, i’ll take the over on the OPS+. why not.
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
Under on both for the reasons dave stated.
dmick89Quote Reply
Not only that, I think it’s crazy to expect that Bryant would be as good in 2016 as he was in 2015. He was one of the league’s best players. He had 6.5 fWAR. As great as he might be, I’ll take the under on that next year.
dmick89Quote Reply
Under 3000 PA but over 112 OPS+.
ceruleanQuote Reply
OR, you might see Schwarber adjust to the league and hit a HR every 11 at bats or so. Ever think of that?
Suburban kidQuote Reply
Suburban kid,
Every night before I fall asleep.
uncle daveQuote Reply
Schwarber, Soler, Russell, and even Bryant had some really tough streaks and made adjustments. Unlike the cup of coffee that many rookies get at the end of the year, they all (save Baez) had opportunity to be “figured out”.
Sure, now that I say it, one if them will have a Castro-esque terrible streak to start the season.
ceruleanQuote Reply
Myles,
If we adjust the criteria to include both 2015 and 2016 rookies, I think the young Cubs may hit the 3000 PA but will likely miss the 112 OPS+.
ceruleanQuote Reply
Wait a second, Baez lost his rookie status in 2014. For some reason that seems a distant memory.
ceruleanQuote Reply
Looking back through the drafts, it’s a shame that they traded Donaldson and kept Vitters.
Browsing them makes it easy to see that prospects fail. The recent success of the Cubs’ top prospects *on the Cubs* is quite an anomaly in their history.
ceruleanQuote Reply
Same goes for Chris Archer, though no one could have expected they’d end up as good as they have become. 9 times out 10, those guys end up failing to even make a dent at the MLB level. Crazy game.
dmick89Quote Reply
And Archer was one of the players the Cubs got from the Indians in the God trade. IIRC, people were even a little more excited about John Gaub at the time.
I think someone mentioned it awhile ago, but maybe if Donaldson and Archer develop with the Cubs, Hendry keeps his job and the Superfriends don’t come to Chicago. No way to know, but it’s possible.
PerkinsQuote Reply
Fixed.
Though to be serious, it amazes me that so few ever even saw the majors, let alone made a dent.
ceruleanQuote Reply
Perkins,
If Hendry still had his job, the Cubs probably had a lot of playoff berths during the Superfriends payroll shedding years.
ceruleanQuote Reply
Eh, the same could be said about any player hitting that level. Shit, I keep taking the under on Trout every year, too. Figure it’ll probably start paying off in about 10 more years.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
I doubt this; I think Hendry was always doomed, even if Ricketts took his sweet time in getting around to it. Ricketts wanted a first-class org at the cutting edge. I didn’t mind Hendry, but he certainly wasn’t that.
Plenty of other ripple effects, though. Wins, trades for prospects, draft picks, etc… would have been a lot different. I think it’s a good bet they would have ended up with Schwarber; he was projected to be mid-to-late in that year’s first round. Almora, Bryant, and Happ are probably gone.
GWQuote Reply
Same goes for Casey McGehee
GWQuote Reply
Woah, Andrelton —-> LAAoA
GWQuote Reply
Apparently Colby Rasmus accepted his qualifying offer.
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89,
Probably the right move. I don’t fault the ‘stros for offering, though. It always seems like teams should be more aggressive with those.
GWQuote Reply
Fair enough. If I’d just bought a sports team worth over half a billion dollars, I’d also be embarrassed to have a leaky office next to the computer server. And a person on staff whose job is to read mlbtraderumors and report to the GM what he sees on there.
PerkinsQuote Reply
I can't think of anyone who better fits the stereotype of managers who print out their emails.
berseliusQuote Reply
berselius,
Print out or it didn’t happen.
ceruleanQuote Reply
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Why-Did-600-Padres-Bobbleheads-Appear-Near-a-Residents-Doorstep-347279632.html?cid=sm_tw&hootPostID=b3cd2f4abf690fdd93620713fa8ba4aa
any theories?
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
Matt Wieters also accepts his qualifying offer.
dmick89Quote Reply
If the Reds are really going to try to rebuild, why aren’t we hearing anything about Billy Hamilton being available. His more than acceptable baserunning and spectacular CF defense would be a pretty desirable commodity on the trade market, I would guess. Oh yeah, the whole not being a FA until 2020 would be pretty valuable too.
SamQuote Reply
Wow, Ian Kennedy declined his qualifying offer.
SamQuote Reply
So we should plan on him not signing with a team until the summer then right?
JonKneeVQuote Reply
Maybe he really wants out of San Diego. Given how terrible next year’s FA market is, he’s one semi-decent year from getting vastly overpaid.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
This more or less sums it up. He’s like a 2.4 fWAR/season starter over the last five years, and a 1.6 fWAR/season guy over the last 3. That’s like a back of the rotation guy to me. I’m not sure he gets a multi-year deal worth more than $15.8 million now.
SamQuote Reply
Eh, maybe I’m way off on his value though, Jason Hammel got 2/$20 million from the Cubs and was considered a pretty fair deal at the time, and they are very similar pitchers. for reference, Hammel was also worth 1.6 fWAR/season over the last 3 seasons.
Though Hammel did not have a draft pick attached to him, which may change the math on what is offered to Kennedy slightly.
SamQuote Reply
I’m pretty stunned that Kennedy didn’t accept. He isn’t getting near 15.8MM AAV in a long-term deal. Next year’s market is Strasburg and then garbage. Seems like a terrible move.
MylesQuote Reply
Myles,
I wonder if multi-year contracts are more valuable to the players than we realize. I can understand why that may be. Even though there’s always the possibility of a trade, I imagine there’s some comfort in knowing you’ll be in the same place for at least 1 year unless they agree to a trade within that first year. Also, if Kennedy can get $20 million over 2 years, that might be more valuable to him than $15.8 million.
I think it’s a terrible move if the goal is to get the highest AAV, but that is probably only part of the goal for the player.
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89,
I don’t know. I imagine it’s different depending on the person. That said, I can’t imagine a scenario where 2/$20 is more valuable to a person than 1/$15.8, unless Ian Kennedy has secret mystical powers and has divined a date with Dr. Andrews in the very near future.
MylesQuote Reply
Myles,
It definitely depends, but that’s the point. I think it’s different for all of them. Cliff Lee took considerably less money overall awhile back when I was certain he’d take the most money. Players take less money to play one place over another for various reasons.
For what it’s worth, Steamer projects 2.1 fWAR next year. If we use that, it’s fairly easy to see him getting a 3/36 deal. I don’t think he will. I think it will be closer to 2/22 or 2/24.
If Ian Kennedy has children, it could be quite valuable to him personally to know he’ll be in one location longer than he’d be if he accepted the qualifying offer. Maybe his child lives across the country. I have no idea. I’m not really interested in whether or not Ian Kennedy has a family.
I don’t know either, but I’m assuming he’s been told what he can roughly expect on the free agent market and for whatever reason, that’s more valuable to him than accepting the offer. There could be any number of reasons he’d risk taking less money overall. One of them includes stupidity.
Marco Estrada just got, what, 2/26? I think that’s the baseline for Kennedy who is a better pitcher than Estrada.
dmick89Quote Reply
I just hope it’s not the Cubs who sign him to a deal like that, but it wouldn’t surprise me since the Cubs are apparently super concerned about their 7th through 12th starters. (dying laughing)
dmick89Quote Reply
EnricoPallazzo,
Baffling and hilarious.
ceruleanQuote Reply
Ok, first a caveat: I am extremely lazy. So, that said, I can see a very good reason for turning down a QA in the hopes of a 2/22 deal. If you’ve done the math and decided that you can be comfortable for the rest of your life on $22m, why not just take it. If you flame out and retire after the contract is done, so be it. Worst case scenario is you’ve got $22m in the bank (obviously much less after taxes but whatever) and you have the peace of mind of maybe being in one city for the next few years and then you retire. The alternative is taking a QA, sucking, and never getting another decent contract and/or living in 5 cities in 3 years.
As stated by others, obviously it’s insane to turn down the QA on purely AAV reasons. But I can see a whole bunch of other factors that might make sense.
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
cerulean,
Yeah I really hope there is some sort of story behind that beyond “oh shit we’ve had these fucking denorfia bobbleheads in the back of our warehouse for 3 years, let’s go find a parking lot to dump them in”
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
The Cubs should have more than just some money to spend. Even assuming that ads and concessions go toward renovation only, a back of the envelope calculation of the ticket price increase plus a full year of the bleachers come out to be around $30M (3.15M in attendance for the year). And that isn’t including the luxury boxes.
ceruleanQuote Reply
How much would a Parra/Jackson platoon cost for CF? Too much? Coghlan can’t play CF so he seems to be a trade candidate since he’s probably good enough to play every day against righties and won’t do that here unless Schwarber is a catcher. Does he have any trade value? Seems like a decent way improve the outfield defense and maybe add a little pitching depth if Coghlan can bring anything back.
SpiderQuote Reply
It’s not really said enough but the Cubs are in such a great position to trade for 1 or more impact talent(s). Here’s just a list of surplus players and prospects that can be traded without leaving a void at a starting position:
Soler
Coghlan
Baez
Castro
Vogelbach
Alcantara
Christian Villanueva
Willson Contreras
Gleyber Torres
Billy McKinney
Albert Almora
CJ Edwards
That’s a lot of players you can deal from to acquire impact, cost controlled talent.
JonKneeVQuote Reply
JonKneeV,
And a lot of players to keep in reserve should injury strike.
I would like to see them trade Coghlan and Vogelbach since neither has a position at the MLB level that utilizes their strengths. It is conceivable that both could be 2-3 WAR players with enough plate appearances.
ceruleanQuote Reply
cerulean,
Just to play devil’s advocate and/or be a dick…
How much of a moot point is it that vogelbach has no position at the mlb level, given that there may well be a DH in the NL by the time that vogelbach is mlb-ready?
So obviously this raises the question of how likely it is that the next CBA institutes an NL DH. I kinda think it’s a given but maybe not?
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
Also…that list (plus pierce johnson) is fucking awesome.
We might actually win some games in the next few years, fellas. Feels kinda nice.
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
EnricoPallazzo,
Schwarber and Rizzo both block Vogelbach—even assuming NL DH.
ceruleanQuote Reply
https://t.co/YEO877WRQi
Love Cam.
RynoQuote Reply
Not what I expected to see by the comment alone. Double entendres sure are fun.
ceruleanQuote Reply
cerulean,
I knew I’d get at least one of you suckers with that caption.
RynoQuote Reply
MylesQuote Reply
For some reason, I have a suspicion that Soler or Baez is gone in the next 3 days to Cleveland for one of Salazar or Carrasco (with minor pieces to sort it out). It just feels like that’s happening even though I don’t have a good reason for it.
MylesQuote Reply
I’d keep Coghlan around. He can be part of a platoon at 2nd with either Castro or Baez to maximize the value from both parties. He can also give Soler an off day from time to time.
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89,
To be clear, I wouldn’t trade Cogs for a bag of sand, but he should be worth at least a good bullpen arm. I would rather see some of the younger guys spelling the regulars.
ceruleanQuote Reply
Cubs needs to finalize their 40 man by Friday 11/20. Any players not added to the 40 man will be eligible to be selected in the Rule 5.
JonKneeVQuote Reply
Myles,
+1 faget point
RynoQuote Reply
https://t.co/LaQ6oO6dyr
RynoQuote Reply
What if it was a really nice bag of sand?
MylesQuote Reply
cerulean,
If you do trade Coghlan, what do you do if you Castro/Baez struggle at 2nd or if Soler struggles in RF? I’d look to trade Castro and enter the season with the plan to platoon Coghlan and Baez at 2nd base. Baez, despite sucking ass in 2014, has actually been about league average in wRC+ against lefties. He should improve some, but I definitely have reservations about just handing over a starting job to him at any position without a lefty that could be used as a platoon partner just in case. Coghlan is that guy. If Baez earns more playing time against righties, great, but if he doesn’t, you’ve got Coghlan to step in.
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89,
You are forgetting about La Stella as a back up/platoon for 2B.
JonKneeVQuote Reply
JonKneeV,
Yeah, I had forgotten about La Stella. That would certainly make it easier to trade Coghlan, but I’m more comfortable with Coghlan. He’s not making a whole lot of money and won’t bring much in return if he was traded.
dmick89Quote Reply
Anyone else see Sammy’s birthday pictures? What a guy.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
I’m glad Bryant won the Rookie of the Year award. I like that guy.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
Suburban kid,
Are they pictures that everybody is going to make fun of while posting dumbass pictures of themselves to Facebook, Instagram and Twitter all year?
dmick89Quote Reply
Rizzo the Rat,
I’m more interested to see how many MVP votes he gets. He was one of the best position players in the NL last year.
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89,
The NL MVP race is rather odd this year, since none of the three finalists played in the postseason.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
Just had this pop up in my fb 'memories' from 2011
Three and a half minutes of Ryan Theriot doing Ryan Theriot things in 2011
berseliusQuote Reply
berselius,
Proof that championships are won by people who try hard enough.
ceruleanQuote Reply
What is wrong with that man?
PerkinsQuote Reply
He must have been distracted by spotting microphones in the crowd.
berseliusQuote Reply
He’s on the right side of the rivalry.
JonKneeVQuote Reply
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/article45163665.html
RynoQuote Reply
I think my favorite Theriot memory was when he threw home instead of initiating a potential inning-ending double play and the Brewers ended up winning. Aramis Ramirez threw up his hands and seemed to shout “what the fuck?” as it was happening.
PerkinsQuote Reply
Perkins,
(dying laughing)
berseliusQuote Reply
Shorter
berseliusQuote Reply
berselius,
https://twitter.com/MJK_NY31/status/666623886453264384
RynoQuote Reply
If I was Cam Newton I’d do that dance after every first down next game
MylesQuote Reply
RynoQuote Reply
RynoQuote Reply
Yes and no.
Sammy posted a whole album of pics from his birthday trip to rich guy mecca Dubai. It’s funny what Sammy chooses to share and what he doesn’t. I chuckled at his sweaters before, and his white pants in some of the new pics, but damn does he know how to enjoy himself. Seeing Sammy all dressed up in Arab garb in the desert posing with his trademark grin was funny, but funny-adorable.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
berselius,
I couldn’t watch the whole thing. Many (dying laughing)s in there but also a few non-errors (pasta diving style admittedly)
Suburban kidQuote Reply
RynoQuote Reply
Ryno,
I can only assume this is in reference to someone’s talking about her kids. If so, this is the best thing I’ve every read.
PerkinsQuote Reply
Marlins looking to move Jose Fernandez. If only there was a team out there looking to move cost-controlled players for young pitching.
berseliusQuote Reply
http://awfulannouncing.com/2015/carolina-panthers-are-having-fun-trolling-people-angry-at-cam-newtons-fancy-dancing.html
berseliusQuote Reply
dmick89,
Given that Rizzo, Bryant, Schwarber are unlikely to be merely average with the bat, and Montero, Soler, Russell are likely to be near average or better on offense (especially for their position), I think there is room to test out some more young guys that are very inexpensive, particularly the defensive-minded ones. While I think Castro is due for quite a productive season, I wouldn’t mind if he and Coghlan were traded as part of a package or two to bring pitching—starting or relieving—while freeing up payroll for getting Heyward/Price (a guy can dream). Having another young rookie like Almora up to play center (offsetting the Schwarber/Soler less-than-stellar defense) and Baez given a shot at second I consider a risk worth taking for at least a few months.
I want to see the kids play.
ceruleanQuote Reply
berselius,
I’d fly to Miami and personally ensure that he got on the plane.
The Marlins are a fucking disgrace, by the way.
uncle daveQuote Reply
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
If they’re healthy, I agree. I am starting to think the Cubs should just keep both Castro and Baez. I think Baez still needs to earn more playing time. I’m far from convinced he can be a regular at the MLB level. Keeping those guys gives the Cubs a lot of depth so if one of the big bats goes down, you don’t have to worry as much about the replacement. The Cubs have talent in the minors they can trade for impact players. Castro isn’t going to land an impact player and Baez will hopefully increase his value yet.
dmick89Quote Reply
What would it cost to get Fernandez?
dmick89Quote Reply
The better question would be who the Cubs would have to package along with Fernandez after they acquire him to get Matt Cain.
berseliusQuote Reply
Maddon—>MOY
Cubs are an Arrieta away from an awards sweep.
PerkinsQuote Reply
Well, other than MVP since that’s Bryce Harper.
PerkinsQuote Reply
The Cy Young is the only interesting race. One could make a good case for all three.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
I think you’re forgetting the “be a man” clause in the MVP bylaws, Perkins.
berseliusQuote Reply
berselius,
Did you see how long it took him to run out that routine pop-up? Shameful.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
I have brought shame to my house. I’ll have to go without dinner for a week now.
PerkinsQuote Reply
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
The A’s signed Rich Hill. That seems oddly appropriate.
PerkinsQuote Reply
Perkins,
Yeah, some broad wrote a letter complaining that her kid saw Cam dance.
RynoQuote Reply
I just now noticed the new banner for your blog and I like it.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Rice Cube,
Pretty sure you’ve had it for months now but it never really registered with me until I clicked on your page today.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
To keep your OV membership, you will need to retroactively not eat dinner for the last two months.
berseliusQuote Reply
I gave the blog some laxatives
http://obstructedview.net/ov-sesquiannual-facepalm-11-18-15-cubs-opening-a-hardware-store/
berseliusQuote Reply