FanGraphs Cubs Organization Reports

[Four and Twenty]

FanGraphs has chimed in with three articles involving Cubs talent and organization outlook. There isn't anything particularly groundbreaking to note but they are certainly worth the read.

 

Organizational Rankings: #18 - Chicago Cubs by Dave Cameron

Organizational Rankings: Current Talent - Cubs by David Golebiewski

Organizational Rankings: Future Talent - Cubs by Bryan Smith

 

Bruce Miles, being a reader of FanGraphs, offers his brief thoughts on the articles here.

 

As per usual, their collective insight is on par with reality.

[Eric Clipperton]

FanGraphs has chimed in with three articles involving Cubs talent and organization outlook. There isn't anything particularly groundbreaking to note but they are certainly worth the read.

 

Organizational Rankings: #18 - Chicago Cubs by Dave Cameron

Organizational Rankings: Current Talent - Cubs by David Golebiewski

Organizational Rankings: Future Talent - Cubs by Bryan Smith

 

Bruce Miles, being a reader of FanGraphs, offers his brief thoughts on the articles here.

 

As per usual, their collective insight is on par with reality.

 

I don't quite get their reasoning for splitting these articles into three parts, I saw a few days ago they appeared to begin doing this?

The first couple teams were in a single article unless I just missed the extra articles on Current/Future parts.

 

Fangraphs is by no means infalliable but generally if they are off the commenters will eventually provide arguments correcting any false biases or analyses; I more or less agree with their sentiments, although if a smart GM were to take over I would expect the Cubs stock to rise in a hurry due to the revenue generated by the Cubs brand and strong positioning to remain one of the teams with a true competitive advantage due to the amount of monetary and other resources which can be generated by the popularity and national pull of the Cubs and Wrigley.

[Four and Twenty]

I don't quite get their reasoning for splitting these articles into three parts, I saw a few days ago they appeared to begin doing this?

The first couple teams were in a single article unless I just missed the extra articles on Current/Future parts.

 

Fangraphs is by no means infalliable but generally if they are off the commenters will eventually provide arguments correcting any false biases or analyses; I more or less agree with their sentiments, although if a smart GM were to take over I would expect the Cubs stock to rise in a hurry due to the revenue generated by the Cubs brand and strong positioning to remain one of the teams with a true competitive advantage due to the amount of monetary and other resources which can be generated by the popularity and national pull of the Cubs and Wrigley.

 

I'm guessing they split the report in to three parts to clearly attribute credit to each author.

 

You are right in regards to the comment section. It is one of the few venues of the internet where the comments are of actual worth. Thoughtful articles reap thoughtful comments.

[Guest]

I don't have a problem with anything they said in any of the articles, but when they put up the Orioles as #17 later in the same day I have to wonder about some of the thought process. Looking at current talent, future talent, resources, competition, etc. and you come to the conclusion that the Orioles are better off? Even beyond that, you've got teams like Arizona, Atlanta, Milwaukee, and Colorado in front of them? I don't see that.

[A-Cal]

I don't have a problem with anything they said in any of the articles, but when they put up the Orioles as #17 later in the same day I have to wonder about some of the thought process. Looking at current talent, future talent, resources, competition, etc. and you come to the conclusion that the Orioles are better off? Even beyond that, you've got teams like Arizona, Atlanta, Milwaukee, and Colorado in front of them? I don't see that.

 

 

I have to disagree. I think they are pretty accurate at the present. My reasoning is quite simply that this team will most likely change dramatically over the course of this season and off season. If things go right, we should jump quite a few spots.

[biittner77]

Was that a Hoops sighting?

[TruffleShuffle]

I don't have a problem with anything they said in any of the articles, but when they put up the Orioles as #17 later in the same day I have to wonder about some of the thought process. Looking at current talent, future talent, resources, competition, etc. and you come to the conclusion that the Orioles are better off? Even beyond that, you've got teams like Arizona, Atlanta, Milwaukee, and Colorado in front of them? I don't see that.

 

 

I have to disagree. I think they are pretty accurate at the present. My reasoning is quite simply that this team will most likely change dramatically over the course of this season and off season. If things go right, we should jump quite a few spots.

 

the orioles probably have a team that projects to be better in the future, but the cubs don't play in the division with two cash cows who win the division and usually the wild card every year. plus tampa bay is still really good.

 

colorado is definitely ahead of the cubs though; i like their team a lot.

[Guest]

The articles felt like the had a heavy emphasis on how efficiently money was being spent. That's fine, but I don't think that should be the primary basis for ranking organizations. A team like the Cubs can easily afford to have a couple bad contracts on the books and also pay other positions market rates for expected performances. When you include overall resources as part of the evaluation, the Cubs are in a much better position than 18th.

[Guest]

The articles felt like the had a heavy emphasis on how efficiently money was being spent. That's fine, but I don't think that should be the primary basis for ranking organizations. A team like the Cubs can easily afford to have a couple bad contracts on the books and also pay other positions market rates for expected performances. When you include overall resources as part of the evaluation, the Cubs are in a much better position than 18th.

 

 

Yeah, they way they talked about Lilly and Dempster was almost begrudging. Sure they aren't a value like a pre-arb player with those numbers, but they aren't overpaid, and most importantly, they are very good at baseball. Many, many teams don't have quality like that in their rotation.

[Guest]

The articles felt like the had a heavy emphasis on how efficiently money was being spent. That's fine, but I don't think that should be the primary basis for ranking organizations. A team like the Cubs can easily afford to have a couple bad contracts on the books and also pay other positions market rates for expected performances. When you include overall resources as part of the evaluation, the Cubs are in a much better position than 18th.

 

 

Yeah, they way they talked about Lilly and Dempster was almost begrudging. Sure they aren't a value like a pre-arb player with those numbers, but they aren't overpaid, and most importantly, they are very good at baseball. Many, many teams don't have quality like that in their rotation.

They talked about Aramis, Lee, Fuku and Byrd the same way.

[Guest]

Fundamentally, the Cubs have exactly three bad contracts on the books right now - Soriano, Zambrano and Silva/Bradley. Even with those contracts on the books, they still have more than $90M additional to fill out the roster. They have some cheap players on the roster and they have a number of players on the way that look at least serviceable and potentially high quality. The current aging core comes off the books a bit at a time over the course of the next few years.

 

It's popular to say the Cubs are screwed, but they're really not in a bad position at all. It could certainly be better, but I'd rather be where the Cubs are than at least 20 other teams in baseball. A $140M payroll solves a lot of problems, as does additional money to spend on the minors and other parts of the operation.

[jersey cubs fan]

Fundamentally, the Cubs have exactly three bad contracts on the books right now - Soriano, Zambrano and Silva/Bradley. Even with those contracts on the books, they still have more than $90M additional to fill out the roster. They have some cheap players on the roster and they have a number of players on the way that look at least serviceable and potentially high quality. The current aging core comes off the books a bit at a time over the course of the next few years.

 

It's popular to say the Cubs are screwed, but they're really not in a bad position at all. It could certainly be better, but I'd rather be where the Cubs are than at least 20 other teams in baseball. A $140M payroll solves a lot of problems, as does additional money to spend on the minors and other parts of the operation.

 

They aren't screwed, but they aren't in a great situation either. Their superior resource advantage is compromised severely by those contracts, which effectively puts them in the middle of the pack with everybody else.

[Guest]

Fundamentally, the Cubs have exactly three bad contracts on the books right now - Soriano, Zambrano and Silva/Bradley. Even with those contracts on the books, they still have more than $90M additional to fill out the roster. They have some cheap players on the roster and they have a number of players on the way that look at least serviceable and potentially high quality. The current aging core comes off the books a bit at a time over the course of the next few years.

 

It's popular to say the Cubs are screwed, but they're really not in a bad position at all. It could certainly be better, but I'd rather be where the Cubs are than at least 20 other teams in baseball. A $140M payroll solves a lot of problems, as does additional money to spend on the minors and other parts of the operation.

 

They aren't screwed, but they aren't in a great situation either. Their superior resource advantage is compromised severely by those contracts, which effectively puts them in the middle of the pack with everybody else.

There are very few teams in baseball without at least one or two bad contracts, though, which brings the middle of the pack down further from where the Cubs are at.

[TruffleShuffle]

fukudome is a bad contract. granted he's not a bad baseball player, but he's not worth what they're paying him.

 

grabow will probably be a bad contract, though that's pretty much small potatoes.