Have The Cubs Changed Their Over-The-Hill Stopgap Ways?

[CubsWin]

The Cubs, rightfully so, have had for many years now the reputation of acquiring big name, but way past their prime, veteran players to short term contracts hoping to catch lightening in a bottle and fill a position for a year or two until something better came along usually some over-hyped prospect who would never materialize.

 

Some people include guys like Ron Cey and Larry Bowa in this group, but they actually got the Cubs to within a game of the World Series, so I can cut Dallas Green some slack on those guys.

 

I'm talking about when they brought in Fergie at the end of his career or Kenny Holtzman. They got lucky and squeezed some juice out of Gary Gaetti and then got greedy/foolish by bringing him back for another season in which he flopped. There's Terry Mulholland. Steve Buchelle. Howard Johnson. Jerry Mumphrey. The list is long and the rep well-deserved...until recently.

 

I just checked the current 40-man roster, and the oldest position player on it is back-up catcher Henry Blanco who is 35 and won't turn 36 until late August. The next oldest position player will also likely be coming off the bench, Cliff Floyd, who just turned 34. The oldest projected starter is Mark DeRosa, who will turn 32 in about a month. When was the last time the Cubs had a line-up 1-8 where the oldest guy was 32? The average age of the projected line-up is 29.

 

The oldest pitcher on the 40-man is Scott Eyre who is 34 and won't turn 35 until the end of May. After him comes Bob Howry who is 33 and won't turn 34 until the beginning of August. The oldest pitcher in the projected rotation is Ted Lilly who just turned 31 three weeks ago. The average age of the projected rotation (Z, Hill, Lilly, Marquis and Prior) is 27.

 

Have Cubs officially stopped their over-the-hill, veteran stop-gap ways?

[A New Era]

Not sure. But I do like that alot of our guys are in their "prime", or near prime years. . Alot of talented guys as well. Ramirez, Lee, Barret, Soriano, Hill, the list goes on and on. . Makes it alot easier for some guys to have career years when their all ~26-32.

[UK1679666180]

The Cubs, rightfully so, have had for many years now the reputation of acquiring big name, but way past their prime, veteran players to short term contracts hoping to catch lightening in a bottle and fill a position for a year or two until something better came along usually some over-hyped prospect who would never materialize.

 

Some people include guys like Ron Cey and Larry Bowa in this group, but they actually got the Cubs to within a game of the World Series, so I can cut Dallas Green some slack on those guys.

 

I'm talking about when they brought in Fergie at the end of his career or Kenny Holtzman. They got lucky and squeezed some juice out of Gary Gaetti and then got greedy/foolish by bringing him back for another season in which he flopped. There's Terry Mulholland. Steve Buchelle. Howard Johnson. Jerry Mumphrey. The list is long and the rep well-deserved...until recently.

 

I just checked the current 40-man roster, and the oldest position player on it is back-up catcher Henry Blanco who is 35 and won't turn 36 until late August. The next oldest position player will also likely be coming off the bench, Cliff Floyd, who just turned 34. The oldest projected starter is Mark DeRosa, who will turn 32 in about a month. When was the last time the Cubs had a line-up 1-8 where the oldest guy was 32? The average age of the projected line-up is 29.

 

The oldest pitcher on the 40-man is Scott Eyre who is 34 and won't turn 35 until the end of May. After him comes Bob Howry who is 33 and won't turn 34 until the beginning of August. The oldest pitcher in the projected rotation is Ted Lilly who just turned 31 three weeks ago. The average age of the projected rotation (Z, Hill, Lilly, Marquis and Prior) is 27.

 

Have Cubs officially stopped their over-the-hill, veteran stop-gap ways?

 

To not have a team of stop-gaps, you either have to have a cont. good farm system or be willing to outbid everyone on top free agents every year and be willing to lock those who come up from the system long-term (espec. pitchers).

[Coach C]

IIRC though, wasn't last year one of the youngest starting-line-ups the Cubs threw out on the field?

 

I just remember Len and Bob talking about it for a few minutes during one of the season opener game, along with some articles written about it last year.

[Derwood]

wow, 4/5 of the starting rotation is younger than me. I must be past my prime. Time to trade me to the Mariners board :lol:

 

But yes, I hope we never have another "Fred McGriff Situation" again

[rawaction]

The Cubs, rightfully so, have had for many years now the reputation of acquiring big name, but way past their prime, veteran players to short term contracts hoping to catch lightening in a bottle and fill a position for a year or two until something better came along usually some over-hyped prospect who would never materialize.

 

Some people include guys like Ron Cey and Larry Bowa in this group, but they actually got the Cubs to within a game of the World Series, so I can cut Dallas Green some slack on those guys.

 

I'm talking about when they brought in Fergie at the end of his career or Kenny Holtzman. They got lucky and squeezed some juice out of Gary Gaetti and then got greedy/foolish by bringing him back for another season in which he flopped. There's Terry Mulholland. Steve Buchelle. Howard Johnson. Jerry Mumphrey. The list is long and the rep well-deserved...until recently.

 

 

A lot of those guys they brought in as pieces to the puzzle. My big problem is the guys they've picked up and thought they would make a huge difference. Guys like Alou (granted he did after wasting 2 years), McGriff, Blauser, etc.

 

But really the Cubs have had some young teams recently. Like mentioned, last year's team was young, with only Todd Walker being over 30 to start the year. It's been a lot better recently. Only Burnitz (1 year deal) and Maddux (prior history w/ team) have been brought in past their prime to be starters.

[BigbadB]

Going through past rosters, they really haven't had that many older players on the roster. In some instances, the long time guys like Grace, Sandberg and Sosa were the oldest players on the team.

 

Sprinkle a Lance Johnson or a Gary Gaetti in there, and they were still pretty young as a whole. They just weren't very good.

[CubsWin]

Going through past rosters, they really haven't had that many older players on the roster. In some instances, the long time guys like Grace, Sandberg and Sosa were the oldest players on the team.

 

Sprinkle a Lance Johnson or a Gary Gaetti in there, and they were still pretty young as a whole. They just weren't very good.

You ain't kidding. The teams of the 90s really sucked. There is no comparison to the teams that Hendry has been able to put together. That's not to say that he is genius or anything, just that he's had more money to play with. He hasn't necessarily spent it in the wisest ways, but I don't think he has done a terrible job either.

 

When I went to the Cubs.com's stat page and clicked on historical stats in the lower left hand margin, I had access to the team stats of every Cubs team going back to 1871. The team's preceding the Hendry era were built on Sosa, Sosa and more Sosa.

 

Chris Stynes and Mark Bellhorn split time as the primary 3B in '02! In 2001, Sosa hit 64 HRs. The next highest HR totals were 17 for Rondell White and Matt Stairs and 12 for Michael Tucker. Oh, lest I forget, Ron Coomer added 8. A 33-year-old Matt Stairs? A 34-year-old Ron Coomer? McGriff, who was acquired in July of that year was 37. Girardi was 36. EY was 34. At least McGriff was still pretty good when they got him, but that is sad and old.

[NewUserName]

Its not always that they are "old". Neifi for instance isnt old. Jose Macias isnt old. They just have a habit of bringing in other teams rejects. In a lot of cases these rejects have a larger role than they should have on any team. What is more frustrating is that the team isnt even in contention. A great opportunity to let some young players play and develop and we are playing the likes of Neifi Perezs and so on and so on. I dont mean to pick on Neifi but he is a recent example that comes to mind. The Cubs have had several of these types of players for years though.

[Amazing_Grace]

I think ideally a team would have a good balance of older, younger, and middle players on your team. The most important parts of the teams, the guys that must do well for team success, should be players in or around their prime years, supplemented by the past prime vets and unproven young players. Older players are more apt to get injured and tend to make a decent salary. Young players are cheap and can put up decent production, but tend to be inconsistent with long slumps as they continue to learn and develop. Players in their prime are likely to be more consistent producers and less likely to get injured, but are more expensive than veterans or prospects.

 

Obviously, unless you're the Yankees, you can't have a superstar in his prime at every position. The mistake that past Cubs teams have made was that they continued to count on older players that were well past their prime to play major roles on the team. They also failed to grasp when certain players (Sosa) would begin to decline and handed out multi-year contracts that kept players way past their prime playing days making money that they were no longer worth.

 

Have the Cubs changed their ways? I don't think so. Soriano will be 38 when his contract expires. Barring a WS win in the next 2 or 3 years, we'll all be cursing that contract long before we're rid of it. Lilly is signed through 2010, when he'll be 35. Derrek Lee is 31, and also signed through 2010, when he'll also be 35. Granted, these guys certainly aren't past their prime NOW, but they probably will be before their contract ends.

[CubsWin]

I think ideally a team would have a good balance of older, younger, and middle players on your team. The most important parts of the teams, the guys that must do well for team success, should be players in or around their prime years, supplemented by the past prime vets and unproven young players. Older players are more apt to get injured and tend to make a decent salary. Young players are cheap and can put up decent production, but tend to be inconsistent with long slumps as they continue to learn and develop. Players in their prime are likely to be more consistent producers and less likely to get injured, but are more expensive than veterans or prospects.

 

Obviously, unless you're the Yankees, you can't have a superstar in his prime at every position. The mistake that past Cubs teams have made was that they continued to count on older players that were well past their prime to play major roles on the team. They also failed to grasp when certain players (Sosa) would begin to decline and handed out multi-year contracts that kept players way past their prime playing days making money that they were no longer worth.

 

Have the Cubs changed their ways? I don't think so. Soriano will be 38 when his contract expires. Barring a WS win in the next 2 or 3 years, we'll all be cursing that contract long before we're rid of it. Lilly is signed through 2010, when he'll be 35. Derrek Lee is 31, and also signed through 2010, when he'll also be 35. Granted, these guys certainly aren't past their prime NOW, but they probably will be before their contract ends.

Unless someone is traded, the Cubs will have all three of Lee at 34/35, Lilly at 34/35 and Soriano at 34/35. Above you mentioned that ideally the core players in or around their prime should be supplemented by past prime vets. It seems you agree that having some past prime vets on your roster is an inevitablility unless you are the Yankees. So what is the problem with Lee's, Lilly's and Soriano's contracts? Are 3 past-prime vets too many? I agree it will likely be a problem if the Cubs don't come up with players at other positions that are in their prime and carrying the production of the team. Are you assuming they won't have any of those type players in the future? That they won't be able to afford them with the money being paid to Lee, Lilly and Soriano?

 

You described the ideal situation (unless your team is the Yankees) and then described the Cubs situation and they didn't seem incompatible. So what is the problem?

 

Also, this post is a bit off topic. The Cubs were kind of known for bringing in way past prime non-star vets to fill major spots (1B, 3B, SP, LF) until something better came along. And yet, right now, no one fits that description on the roster. Hendry has people in or around their prime at every position save proven back-up catcher and proven lefty and righty set-up men. So I posed the question have the Cubs changed their ways/philosophy?

[Amazing_Grace]

Unless someone is traded, the Cubs will have all three of Lee at 34/35, Lilly at 34/35 and Soriano at 34/35. Above you mentioned that ideally the core players in or around their prime should be supplemented by past prime vets. It seems you agree that having some past prime vets on your roster is an inevitablility unless you are the Yankees. So what is the problem with Lee's, Lilly's and Soriano's contracts? Are 3 past-prime vets too many? I agree it will likely be a problem if the Cubs don't come up with players at other positions that are in their prime and carrying the production of the team. Are you assuming they won't have any of those type players in the future? That they won't be able to afford them with the money being paid to Lee, Lilly and Soriano?

 

You described the ideal situation (unless your team is the Yankees) and then described the Cubs situation and they didn't seem incompatible. So what is the problem?

 

Also, this post is a bit off topic. The Cubs were kind of known for bringing in way past prime non-star vets to fill major spots (1B, 3B, SP, LF) until something better came along. And yet, right now, no one fits that description on the roster. Hendry has people in or around their prime at every position save proven back-up catcher and proven lefty and righty set-up men. So I posed the question have the Cubs changed their ways/philosophy?

 

No, having 3 guys a little past their prime is not too many. However, those three players will make in excess of 40 million dollars combined, which leaves fewer dollars to get good players in their primes at other positions.

 

This season, everyone is pretty much in their prime, so if we're only looking at this year and not down the road, then I guess you could say the Cubs have changed their ways over the short term. They certainly don't have anyone as glaringly over the hill as Alou, McGriff, or Gaetti, but Soriano will quite possibly be making 18M to put up numbers comaparable to the above 3 before his contract is up.

 

Most teams other than the Yankees are going to have some Gaetti types. Those guys don't make nearly as much cash as the 28-32 year olds though. I think that the real problem comes from handing out contracts that last too long and ending up stuck with decline phase players making in excess of 10M per season (contract backloading is not a problem unique to the Cubs, but one all of baseball seems to share) and being forced by finances to go very old or very young at most of the other positions and then hoping that someone will exceed expectations. The Lee and Lilly contracts are far from the worst the Cubs have done, and they should be in their prime for around half the contract and if they decline slowly, the deals aren't too bad. The Soriano contract is awful. We're paying for at least 3 years of decline in exchange for 5 of prime Soriano.

 

I ask myself if the Cubs management has demonstrated that they understand ballplayers' numbers begin to decline as they reach 32-35 years old? That's what "have they changed their ways" means to me. The contracts they handed out this offseason (Lee was last year) suggest they still do not understand that.

 

A lot of things depend on who the Cubs are eventually sold to and whether that person is willing to let payroll stay at current levels or increase some. If the new Cubs owner is committed to winning and willing to take a smaller profit in the short term in order to win, the Cubs should be able to get some other contributors if some highly paid vets decline, and as you said, there should be no issue. If the new Cubs owner wants to cut payroll, then well, we're the Baltimore Orioles of the late 90's and early 00's, stuck with big contracts that we can't get rid of and no money to fill holes elsewhere.

 

EDIT: Another thing stopgap veterans are indicative of is that the organization is failing to produce MLB players at those positions. This has been true of the Cubs and position players for as long as I can remember.