Bradley Signs with Cubs 3/$30 million (p. 33)

[jersey cubs fan]

And, given the crapshoot nature of the playoffs, it's not like the Cubs -- with a rotation of Z, Harden, Demp, and Lilly -- doesn't have a reasonable chance to win in the postseason.

 

Only a blind man would deny that these moves have been one downgrade after another. I'm just not sure how much the Cubs have really hurt their chances of winning the World Series. To be sure, they've got less margin of error in the Central, but they're still a prohibitive favorite.

 

There's a crapshoot aspect to the playoffs, but making your team worse is going to reduce your chances of winning it, regardless.

[Soul]

If the Bradley deal doesn't go down but the Cubs are able to trade for Hermidia (or Scott from the Os), will trading DeRo be worth it?

 

All I know is, we can talk about proposed trades, "done deals" and "wish lists" all we want, but every move that has actually materialized so far has resulted in a downgrade.

 

At this rate we're going to be downgrading ourselves right out of the playoffs. But we beefed up Boise's lineup, so all's good.

 

Not what I like seeing. If Bradley and Peavy don't both materialize, this team's in trouble.

 

Trouble? I think that's a bit of an overreaction. Even with these numerous downgrades, who in the NL Central is better? The Cubs are still a heavy favorite to win the division. And, given the crapshoot nature of the playoffs, it's not like the Cubs -- with a rotation of Z, Harden, Demp, and Lilly -- doesn't have a reasonable chance to win in the postseason.

 

Only a blind man would deny that these moves have been one downgrade after another. I'm just not sure how much the Cubs have really hurt their chances of winning the World Series. To be sure, they've got less margin of error in the Central, but they're still a prohibitive favorite.

 

The first round is more of a crapshoot than the NLCS though. My goal isn't to win the Central again. It's to go further. I don't see another team on paper that is better in the Central, but I do see the margin of error being small enough now that we could be in trouble if a team jumps up and puts together a couple of extended winning streaks, which happens.

 

And with the roster as it currently is, we'd have to get pretty lucky not to face superior opposition on our way to the WS.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

And, given the crapshoot nature of the playoffs, it's not like the Cubs -- with a rotation of Z, Harden, Demp, and Lilly -- doesn't have a reasonable chance to win in the postseason.

 

Only a blind man would deny that these moves have been one downgrade after another. I'm just not sure how much the Cubs have really hurt their chances of winning the World Series. To be sure, they've got less margin of error in the Central, but they're still a prohibitive favorite.

 

There's a crapshoot aspect to the playoffs, but making your team worse is going to reduce your chances of winning it, regardless.

 

I'm skeptical that it does enough to be a consideration in personnel moves, but that may just be the experience of seeing the Cubs swept twice by inferior teams talking.

[Illini Iceman]

And, given the crapshoot nature of the playoffs, it's not like the Cubs -- with a rotation of Z, Harden, Demp, and Lilly -- doesn't have a reasonable chance to win in the postseason.

 

Only a blind man would deny that these moves have been one downgrade after another. I'm just not sure how much the Cubs have really hurt their chances of winning the World Series. To be sure, they've got less margin of error in the Central, but they're still a prohibitive favorite.

 

There's a crapshoot aspect to the playoffs, but making your team worse is going to reduce your chances of winning it, regardless.

 

This reaction is just getting crazy.

 

The Cubs let go of a closer instead of paying him 3 years at $10M a year. If people here did not have a man crush on him because his name is Kerry Wood there is no way anyone would support paying a closer that much money.

 

They re-signed their best starter from last year but the assumption is that he will completely turn to crap this year even though he pitched at a high level for pretty much the whole season.

 

They traded a 34 year old middle infielder coming off a career year and used that salary savings to add a significant offensive improvement in Bradley (ok, I get it, it hasn't happened yet, but it will). This is a catastrophe because Bradley will be hurt all year (this is a known fact) and DeRosa will have little or no regression. The replacement, Fontenot, actually out OPS'd DeRosa last year but there is no way that will happen again because DeRosa is a veteran and Fontenot is a young player and you have to trust the veteran, dude.

 

Unlimited budget, they keep Wood and DeRosa and sign Bradley but welcome to the real world. The choice was DeRosa or Bradley and I think he went the right way. You can argue that he gave Soriano too much or that Fukudome was a mistake but starting where he did this offseason I think he made the right choices.

[anabiono]

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3805324&name=olney_buster

 

Olney's report is pretty spot on...

 

i just really don't agree with him on edmonds...but...who knows

 

i just know that i am getting more and more upset since the signing of miles...

[Hairyducked Idiot]

They re-signed their best starter from last year but the assumption is that he will completely turn to crap this year even though he pitched at a high level for pretty much the whole season.

 

Which he had never done before, and he's 32 years old.

 

Unlimited budget, they keep Wood and DeRosa and sign Bradley but welcome to the real world. The choice was DeRosa or Bradley and I think he went the right way. You can argue that he gave Soriano too much or that Fukudome was a mistake but starting where he did this offseason I think he made the right choices.

 

The never-ending Hendry defense: this stupid thing was made necessary by previous stupid things.

 

Of course, the Soriano overpay was necessary because the team fell apart in 05/06 because he did such a poor job. And he had to let Baker blow out Prior's arm because he hadn't put together a good bullpen.

 

It never ends...

Edited January 2, 2009 by Hairyducked Idiot

[Transmogrified Tiger]

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3805324&name=olney_buster

 

Olney's report is pretty spot on...

 

And one of those evaluators made the argument that DeRosa may have been the Cubs' best player last season.

 

Holy dumb.

 

He also seems to have a profound misunderstanding of why the Peavy deal hasn't been done yet.

[Warren Brusstar]

And, given the crapshoot nature of the playoffs, it's not like the Cubs -- with a rotation of Z, Harden, Demp, and Lilly -- doesn't have a reasonable chance to win in the postseason.

 

Only a blind man would deny that these moves have been one downgrade after another. I'm just not sure how much the Cubs have really hurt their chances of winning the World Series. To be sure, they've got less margin of error in the Central, but they're still a prohibitive favorite.

 

There's a crapshoot aspect to the playoffs, but making your team worse is going to reduce your chances of winning it, regardless.

 

Sure, and I didn't contend otherwise. The point was that they've probably marginally reduced their chances of winning the Central, and marginally reduced expectancy of winning the World Series. On the latter point, I'd guess that the amount at which they've reduced their WS win expectancy is far less than any variance from dumb luck.

 

Obviously, I'd rather have the best team in the playoffs than the 8th-best team. The point is that the downgrades they've made don't mean they're "in trouble," the statement to which I responded

[Transmogrified Tiger]

They re-signed their best starter from last year but the assumption is that he will completely turn to crap this year even though he pitched at a high level for pretty much the whole season.

 

Which he had never done before, and he's 32 years old.

 

Unlimited budget, they keep Wood and DeRosa and sign Bradley but welcome to the real world. The choice was DeRosa or Bradley and I think he went the right way. You can argue that he gave Soriano too much or that Fukudome was a mistake but starting where he did this offseason I think he made the right choices.

 

The never-ending Hendry defense: this stupid thing was made necessary by previous stupid things.

 

Of course, the Soriano overpay was necessary because the team fell apart in 05/06 because he did such a poor job. And he had to let Baker blow out Prior's arm because he hadn't put together a good bullpen.

 

It never ends...

 

What's the correct course of action then? How would you have built the team given the financial constraints the team is under this offseason?

[Illini Iceman]

They re-signed their best starter from last year but the assumption is that he will completely turn to crap this year even though he pitched at a high level for pretty much the whole season.

 

Which he had never done before, and he's 34 years old.

 

Unlimited budget, they keep Wood and DeRosa and sign Bradley but welcome to the real world. The choice was DeRosa or Bradley and I think he went the right way. You can argue that he gave Soriano too much or that Fukudome was a mistake but starting where he did this offseason I think he made the right choices.

 

The never-ending Hendry defense: this stupid thing was made necessary by previous stupid things.

 

Of course, the Soriano overpay was necessary because the team fell apart in 05/06 because he did such a poor job. And he had to let Baker blow out Prior's arm because he hadn't put together a good bullpen.

 

It never ends...

 

Call it is "never-ending Hendry defense" if you like, but since there is no time machine that allows anyone to go back and undo what has been done he has to work with the cards he has. I am not defending his overall strategy through the years, just being realistic that it was the best approach this offseason. Maybe he should have let Dempster walk and completed the Peavy deal, that would be one thing that was a possibility and could have been overall better. However, the indication is that he thought Towers was asking for too much talent so he probably decided to take the bird in the hand (Dempster), hold on to his trading chips and hope he could work something out later. However, if he let Dempster walk to Atlanta (and indications are that they were offering close to what the Cubs wound up getting him for) and then Towers decided to use that as leverage to ask for even more for Peavy then he would be in a really bad spot.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

They re-signed their best starter from last year but the assumption is that he will completely turn to crap this year even though he pitched at a high level for pretty much the whole season.

 

Which he had never done before, and he's 32 years old.

 

Unlimited budget, they keep Wood and DeRosa and sign Bradley but welcome to the real world. The choice was DeRosa or Bradley and I think he went the right way. You can argue that he gave Soriano too much or that Fukudome was a mistake but starting where he did this offseason I think he made the right choices.

 

The never-ending Hendry defense: this stupid thing was made necessary by previous stupid things.

 

Of course, the Soriano overpay was necessary because the team fell apart in 05/06 because he did such a poor job. And he had to let Baker blow out Prior's arm because he hadn't put together a good bullpen.

 

It never ends...

 

What's the correct course of action then? How would you have built the team given the financial constraints the team is under this offseason?

 

Let Dempster go and not signed Miles. That should cover DeRosa and Bradley.

 

Going by 2009 expectations and not 2008 results, I'll take DeRosa+Marshall over Dempster+Miles

[Soul]

And, given the crapshoot nature of the playoffs, it's not like the Cubs -- with a rotation of Z, Harden, Demp, and Lilly -- doesn't have a reasonable chance to win in the postseason.

 

Only a blind man would deny that these moves have been one downgrade after another. I'm just not sure how much the Cubs have really hurt their chances of winning the World Series. To be sure, they've got less margin of error in the Central, but they're still a prohibitive favorite.

 

There's a crapshoot aspect to the playoffs, but making your team worse is going to reduce your chances of winning it, regardless.

 

Sure, and I didn't contend otherwise. The point was that they've probably marginally reduced their chances of winning the Central, and marginally reduced expectancy of winning the World Series. On the latter point, I'd guess that the amount at which they've reduced their WS win expectancy is far less than any variance from dumb luck.

 

Obviously, I'd rather have the best team in the playoffs than the 8th-best team. The point is that the downgrades they've made don't mean they're "in trouble," the statement to which I responded

 

It depends on what you consider to be in trouble. From your previous comment it sounds like you'll be content with another Central title and a quick sweep out of the playoffs. From that perspective I agree with you, we probably aren't in trouble.

 

I'm expecting more. I'm expecting a WS run from this club. Are you seriously going to suggest that's not now in trouble, without further moves?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The Cubs would be better off without Dempster's new contract regardless of whether Peavy is dealt or not. You just can't give contracts like that to 32-year-old starting pitcher with one good season under their belts.

[David]

And, given the crapshoot nature of the playoffs, it's not like the Cubs -- with a rotation of Z, Harden, Demp, and Lilly -- doesn't have a reasonable chance to win in the postseason.

 

Only a blind man would deny that these moves have been one downgrade after another. I'm just not sure how much the Cubs have really hurt their chances of winning the World Series. To be sure, they've got less margin of error in the Central, but they're still a prohibitive favorite.

 

There's a crapshoot aspect to the playoffs, but making your team worse is going to reduce your chances of winning it, regardless.

 

Sure, and I didn't contend otherwise. The point was that they've probably marginally reduced their chances of winning the Central, and marginally reduced expectancy of winning the World Series. On the latter point, I'd guess that the amount at which they've reduced their WS win expectancy is far less than any variance from dumb luck.

 

Obviously, I'd rather have the best team in the playoffs than the 8th-best team. The point is that the downgrades they've made don't mean they're "in trouble," the statement to which I responded

 

It depends on what you consider to be in trouble. From your previous comment it sounds like you'll be content with another Central title and a quick sweep out of the playoffs. From that perspective I agree with you, we probably aren't in trouble.

 

I'm expecting more. I'm expecting a WS run from this club. Are you seriously going to suggest that's not now in trouble, without further moves?

 

Once in the playoffs, the chances of one team over another aren't all that different. I feel like a broken record whenever I make this argument, but whatever...

 

Does that mean I don't want the Cubs putting out the best team they possibly can? Absolutely not. And maybe there are certain qualities/deficiencies in teams that play greater/smaller roles in the playoffs than they do in the long haul, but let's face it. The reality of the system (and any playoff system, really) is that it's a short term roll of the dice and absolutely anything can happen. There are two possible final outcomes to every playoff series. One team wins, another team loses and goes home. Might as well flip a coin. A slightly weighted one, but you're still only flipping it once per series. It's pretty easy to defy odds under those circumstances.

[Warren Brusstar]

And, given the crapshoot nature of the playoffs, it's not like the Cubs -- with a rotation of Z, Harden, Demp, and Lilly -- doesn't have a reasonable chance to win in the postseason.

 

Only a blind man would deny that these moves have been one downgrade after another. I'm just not sure how much the Cubs have really hurt their chances of winning the World Series. To be sure, they've got less margin of error in the Central, but they're still a prohibitive favorite.

 

There's a crapshoot aspect to the playoffs, but making your team worse is going to reduce your chances of winning it, regardless.

 

Sure, and I didn't contend otherwise. The point was that they've probably marginally reduced their chances of winning the Central, and marginally reduced expectancy of winning the World Series. On the latter point, I'd guess that the amount at which they've reduced their WS win expectancy is far less than any variance from dumb luck.

 

Obviously, I'd rather have the best team in the playoffs than the 8th-best team. The point is that the downgrades they've made don't mean they're "in trouble," the statement to which I responded

 

It depends on what you consider to be in trouble. From your previous comment it sounds like you'll be content with another Central title and a quick sweep out of the playoffs. From that perspective I agree with you, we probably aren't in trouble.

 

I'm expecting more. I'm expecting a WS run from this club. Are you seriously going to suggest that's not now in trouble, without further moves?

 

You're not paying attention to what I wrote. They had the best team in the NL last year and got swept. They had the better team in the LDS in '07 and got swept. There's plainly an element of blind dumb luck/getting hot at the right time to winning in the playoffs. My point is whatever amount the Cubs have given back to the rest of the league is less than the effect that blind dumb luck/getting hot at the right time has on winning a playoff series.

 

So, no, I don't think they are "in trouble" and, no, I'm not content with a Central title and a quick sweep out of the playoffs.

[Soul]

I think you're abdicating the reality that a better ballclub is still a better ballclub. Sure, there's an element of chance to the playoffs, but you can still increase your chances by having the better team. It's not *THAT* much of a roll of the dice. There's chance, yes, but it's not all chance.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I think you're abdicating the reality that a better ballclub is still a better ballclub. Sure, there's an element of chance to the playoffs, but you can still increase your chances by having the better team. It's not *THAT* much of a roll of the dice. There's chance, yes, but it's not all chance.

 

But at what cost? There's an opportunity cost to everything, and I think once you are fairly confident of making the playoffs, the utility of going for more rather than saving resources for later years isn't worth it.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

What's the correct course of action then? How would you have built the team given the financial constraints the team is under this offseason?

 

Let Dempster go and not signed Miles. That should cover DeRosa and Bradley.

 

Going by 2009 expectations and not 2008 results, I'll take DeRosa+Marshall over Dempster+Miles

 

That's not the comparison though. It's Dempster v. Marquis and Fontenot/Miles v. DeRosa/Fontenot, since Bradley and Marshall start in both scenarios. I don't think there's a substantial difference between the two, especially if there had been someone better than Miles(Barmes :( ) in that platoon spot.

[Soul]

I think you're abdicating the reality that a better ballclub is still a better ballclub. Sure, there's an element of chance to the playoffs, but you can still increase your chances by having the better team. It's not *THAT* much of a roll of the dice. There's chance, yes, but it's not all chance.

 

But at what cost? There's an opportunity cost to everything, and I think once you are fairly confident of making the playoffs, the utility of going for more rather than saving resources for later years isn't worth it.

 

What are we saving for the future. All of this is being re-spent on Bradley anyway. We aren't proposing to improve, and we aren't saving anything up. What opportunity cost? We're essentially trying to tread water, and that's not even certain.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

What's the correct course of action then? How would you have built the team given the financial constraints the team is under this offseason?

 

Let Dempster go and not signed Miles. That should cover DeRosa and Bradley.

 

Going by 2009 expectations and not 2008 results, I'll take DeRosa+Marshall over Dempster+Miles

 

That's not the comparison though. It's Dempster v. Marquis and Fontenot/Miles v. DeRosa/Fontenot, since Bradley and Marshall start in both scenarios. I don't think there's a substantial difference between the two, especially if there had been someone better than Miles(Barmes :( ) in that platoon spot.

 

If those are the choices, I take Marquis, DeRosa and Fontenot. I'm getting virtually the same production without the long-term contract commitments.

[David]

The thing is, it IS *that* much of a roll of the dice, despite how much our perception of what's going on might want to tell us otherwise.

 

The craps thing is actually a decent analogy. Sevens roll the most, and that's where the house gets their slight edge, but you can go for a pretty long period of time without seeing anyone roll a seven.

[David]

I think it's especially true in baseball, btw, since so much of the game is chance based.

[Warren Brusstar]

I think you're abdicating the reality that a better ballclub is still a better ballclub. Sure, there's an element of chance to the playoffs, but you can still increase your chances by having the better team. It's not *THAT* much of a roll of the dice. There's chance, yes, but it's not all chance.

 

No, I'm not. I'm reacting to the silly overreaction that the Cubs are "in trouble" because they've marginally reduced their chances of winning the Central, and marginally reduced their chances of winning the World Series.

 

Again, I'm not justifying any one of the moves they've made this offseason. The signing of Miles -- particularly because I suspect he will play every day while Fontenot again languishes -- is particularly egregious.

[waffle]

alrighty...

 

I'll just align myself to the "Hendry has a plan" crowd and assume that this is a work in progress. I also believe that Lou has some say, and I also believe that Lou has a clue.

 

- Derosa was a goner, I like the trade

- Miles? Dunno. I have no idea at this point if he is going to start

- There are financial moves being made. At this point I believe they are being made to add flexibility rather than to simply save money

 

This is all very interesting, but at this point I am going to hold off on detailed analysis until all the chips have fallen. If you live in a 2 dimensional world everything is a surprise...

[David]

I think you're abdicating the reality that a better ballclub is still a better ballclub. Sure, there's an element of chance to the playoffs, but you can still increase your chances by having the better team. It's not *THAT* much of a roll of the dice. There's chance, yes, but it's not all chance.

 

No, I'm not. I'm reacting to the silly overreaction that the Cubs are "in trouble" because they've marginally reduced their chances of winning the Central, and marginally reduced their chances of winning the World Series.

 

Again, I'm not justifying any one of the moves they've made this offseason. The signing of Miles -- particularly because I suspect he will play every day while Fontenot again languishes -- is particularly egregious.

 

I don't think the bolded is what will happen, but we shall see.

 

Anyway, I agree with your point entirely. Hell, you could probably argue that the Cubs chances of winning the central going into 2009 are better than they were going into 2008. At this point, they're decreased from what they would have been had we not made these moves, I guess, but I think that's a pointless argument to make when there are still more moves to be made. It matters now, but it probably won't mean a whole hell of a lot come April. Or even next week.