Is there a precedent?

[muntjack]

The Chicago Cubs have the highest payroll in the league, an above average pitching staff and have been relatively injury-free, yet they are floundering at 6 games under .500. This has to be an anomaly, right? It seems whenever a top-payroll team vastly underperforms it is due to a rash of injuries or terrible pitching. Is there a precedent for this? If not, does it tell us anything about this team (other than,"fire Lou, fire Hendry, etc")?

[jiml60]

I don't know or care if there is a precedent but yes, it does tell us a lot about how this team was constructed. Foolish spending, by Hendry, fire his a**.

[erik316wttn]

The Chicago Cubs have the highest payroll in the league, an above average pitching staff and have been relatively injury-free, yet they are floundering at 6 games under .500. This has to be an anomaly, right? It seems whenever a top-payroll team vastly underperforms it is due to a rash of injuries or terrible pitching. Is there a precedent for this? If not, does it tell us anything about this team (other than,"fire Lou, fire Hendry, etc")?

 

Spending money in and of itself won't win you a championship. It's how you spend the money, i.e. not giving huge contracts to players who either won't be any good by the end of it (Soriano) or bafflingly high contracts to players who just aren't all that good (Grabow, Miles).

[Sammy Sofa]

The Chicago Cubs have the highest payroll in the league, an above average pitching staff and have been relatively injury-free, yet they are floundering at 6 games under .500. This has to be an anomaly, right? It seems whenever a top-payroll team vastly underperforms it is due to a rash of injuries or terrible pitching. Is there a precedent for this? If not, does it tell us anything about this team (other than,"fire Lou, fire Hendry, etc")?

 

Spending money in and of itself won't win you a championship. It's how you spend the money, i.e. not giving huge contracts to players who either won't be any good by the end of it (Soriano) or bafflingly high contracts to players who just aren't all that good (Grabow, Miles).

 

Right. Spending money is no guarantee of ending up with a good team. You look at the other teams with payrolls around or above the Cubs and they've spent a good portion of that on at least one, though typically at least two, "sure thing players" just on offense that you can normally count on year after year, and they usually were signed while they were still young and productive with some time to go while they'd still be in their prime. The money the Cubs have spent on offense has been tied up too often in players who were too old (and overpaid) and simply are not or were not the type of players you build a team around.

[ScrubMD]

Haven't the Mets had similar teams?

[muntjack]

Yeah, perhaps I wasn't clear. I understand spending money does not equal winning. I'm trying to illustrate that the poor spending wasn't exacerbated by injuries or poor pitching, but rather that the team has overall numbers around what was expected, if not from the exact sources they were expected from, and yet they are in terrible shape this far into the season.

 

We have 3 starters with top 12 WHIPS in the league

 

we have qualified hitters with OPS of

 

.902

.881

.879

.842

 

We're getting outstanding production from an unexpected source in Colvin

 

Marmol and Marshall are having career years in the bullpen

 

What I'm saying is in the history of baseball, perhaps no team has been handled as poorly as the 2010 Chicago Cubs. Just trying to put it in perspective.

 

Hill starting way too much , Grabow in tough spots over and over. Our worst hitter getting the most ABs, The wrong pinch hitter seemingly every time. Many teams have to deal with similar problems, but those teams don't have better options. The Cubs do. Management is fumbling on an epic level.

[Guest]

The Chicago Cubs have the highest payroll in the league, an above average pitching staff and have been relatively injury-free, yet they are floundering at 6 games under .500. This has to be an anomaly, right? It seems whenever a top-payroll team vastly underperforms it is due to a rash of injuries or terrible pitching. Is there a precedent for this? If not, does it tell us anything about this team (other than,"fire Lou, fire Hendry, etc")?

 

Spending money in and of itself won't win you a championship. It's how you spend the money, i.e. not giving huge contracts to players who either won't be any good by the end of it (Soriano) or bafflingly high contracts to players who just aren't all that good (Grabow, Miles).

 

Right. Spending money is no guarantee of ending up with a good team. You look at the other teams with payrolls around or above the Cubs and they've spent a good portion of that on at least one, though typically at least two, "sure thing players" just on offense that you can normally count on year after year, and they usually were signed while they were still young and productive with some time to go while they'd still be in their prime. The money the Cubs have spent on offense has been tied up too often in players who were too old (and overpaid) and simply are not or were not the type of players you build a team around.

To be fair...

 

A bunch of the money committed on offense for the Cubs is in Ramirez and Lee. ARam has been a "sure thing" guy - not top of the league production, but very consistent and very good. Very much worth his contract up to this season. Lee hasn't been as consistent, but Hendry couldn't know he would break his wrist shortly after signing that deal. After Lee finally got 100%, he had another very good year. I think that if Furcal never happened, we'd all be plenty happy with that contract, as well.

[Sammy Sofa]

A bunch of the money committed on offense for the Cubs is in Ramirez and Lee. ARam has been a "sure thing" guy - not top of the league production, but very consistent and very good. Very much worth his contract up to this season. Lee hasn't been as consistent, but Hendry couldn't know he would break his wrist shortly after signing that deal. After Lee finally got 100%, he had another very good year. I think that if Furcal never happened, we'd all be plenty happy with that contract, as well.

 

Lee and Aramis are like the last guys I think of on this team in terms of having bad contracts. My point is that the teams with big payrolls tend to lock up most of their money in good players whereas the Cubs seem to love spreading it around too much overpaying for the wrong guys time and time again.

[Guest]

A bunch of the money committed on offense for the Cubs is in Ramirez and Lee. ARam has been a "sure thing" guy - not top of the league production, but very consistent and very good. Very much worth his contract up to this season. Lee hasn't been as consistent, but Hendry couldn't know he would break his wrist shortly after signing that deal. After Lee finally got 100%, he had another very good year. I think that if Furcal never happened, we'd all be plenty happy with that contract, as well.

 

Lee and Aramis are like the last guys I think of on this team in terms of having bad contracts. My point is that the teams with big payrolls tend to lock up most of their money in good players whereas the Cubs seem to love spreading it around too much overpaying for the wrong guys time and time again.

Yeah, but Lee and Aramis fit the description from your previous post pretty well.

[Sammy Sofa]

A bunch of the money committed on offense for the Cubs is in Ramirez and Lee. ARam has been a "sure thing" guy - not top of the league production, but very consistent and very good. Very much worth his contract up to this season. Lee hasn't been as consistent, but Hendry couldn't know he would break his wrist shortly after signing that deal. After Lee finally got 100%, he had another very good year. I think that if Furcal never happened, we'd all be plenty happy with that contract, as well.

 

Lee and Aramis are like the last guys I think of on this team in terms of having bad contracts. My point is that the teams with big payrolls tend to lock up most of their money in good players whereas the Cubs seem to love spreading it around too much overpaying for the wrong guys time and time again.

Yeah, but Lee and Aramis fit the description from your previous post pretty well.

 

I disagree. Yeah, Lee had 2005, but wrist injury or not that didn't make him a sure thing. The Cubs shelling out after one (admittedly amazing) year for a guy expecting him to be THE guy as the #3 hitter is indicative of how they've spending their payroll poorly as its expanded. And even Aramis isn't what I'm talking about. You look at the teams typically spending at or above the Cubs and their idea of at least one "sure thing" is going and getting someone who is basically a HOF lock. Aramis has been great for this team, but for the money they had available they should have been able to find someone better than him (though I'm not saying instead of him) and definitely better than Lee. No team is going to spend smart 100% of the time, but for the money they had available the Cubs should have been able to come away with someone better than Lee or Soriano or even Aramis.

[Backtobanks]

A bunch of the money committed on offense for the Cubs is in Ramirez and Lee. ARam has been a "sure thing" guy - not top of the league production, but very consistent and very good. Very much worth his contract up to this season. Lee hasn't been as consistent, but Hendry couldn't know he would break his wrist shortly after signing that deal. After Lee finally got 100%, he had another very good year. I think that if Furcal never happened, we'd all be plenty happy with that contract, as well.

 

Lee and Aramis are like the last guys I think of on this team in terms of having bad contracts. My point is that the teams with big payrolls tend to lock up most of their money in good players whereas the Cubs seem to love spreading it around too much overpaying for the wrong guys time and time again.

Yeah, but Lee and Aramis fit the description from your previous post pretty well.

 

Totally agree with you Tim. DLee and ARam have been solid and consistent (when not recovering from an injury) and deserved the money they got. Every high-budget team has a few bad contracts, but they go unnoticed if the team is reasonably successful.

[rawaction]

Haven't the Mets had similar teams?

 

The Mets of recent years have had bad pitching (everyone but Santan) and injuries (Beltran, Reyes, Delgado).

[lumafia]

A bunch of the money committed on offense for the Cubs is in Ramirez and Lee. ARam has been a "sure thing" guy - not top of the league production, but very consistent and very good. Very much worth his contract up to this season. Lee hasn't been as consistent, but Hendry couldn't know he would break his wrist shortly after signing that deal. After Lee finally got 100%, he had another very good year. I think that if Furcal never happened, we'd all be plenty happy with that contract, as well.

 

Lee and Aramis are like the last guys I think of on this team in terms of having bad contracts. My point is that the teams with big payrolls tend to lock up most of their money in good players whereas the Cubs seem to love spreading it around too much overpaying for the wrong guys time and time again.

Yeah, but Lee and Aramis fit the description from your previous post pretty well.

 

I disagree. Yeah, Lee had 2005, but wrist injury or not that didn't make him a sure thing. The Cubs shelling out after one (admittedly amazing) year for a guy expecting him to be THE guy as the #3 hitter is indicative of how they've spending their payroll poorly as its expanded. And even Aramis isn't what I'm talking about. You look at the teams typically spending at or above the Cubs and their idea of at least one "sure thing" is going and getting someone who is basically a HOF lock. Aramis has been great for this team, but for the money they had available they should have been able to find someone better than him (though I'm not saying instead of him) and definitely better than Lee. No team is going to spend smart 100% of the time, but for the money they had available the Cubs should have been able to come away with someone better than Lee or Soriano or even Aramis.

 

I agree that Soriano's contract is way over the top, but the Lee and Aramis contracts were reasonable. A 5/75 contract for a 27 year old 3B who was averaging a 930 OPS in the 3 years prior to the extension is a fair contract. Nobody could have foreseen the shoulder injury, or its lingering effects. The Lee contract was a little less excusable, but not by much. In Hendry's defense (I can't believe I'm saying that), when healthy, Lee has been more productive since the extension. This year has certainly been an unusual year for Lee, and if he were on his career averages from the past 5 years, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

The Soriano, Zambrano and Bradley contracts were inexcusable. The Grabow and Samardzija contracts deserve some criticism as well.

[jersey cubs fan]

In Hendry's defense (I can't believe I'm saying that), when healthy, Lee has been more productive since the extension. This year has certainly been an unusual year for Lee, and if he were on his career averages from the past 5 years, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

 

Nonsense. Lee was nearly just as bad from May 2008-April 2009. He's had a very unspectaculiar career for a 1B, with a couple stand out years.

 

It's not just that the Cubs don't have any steady guys, it's that they don't have any consistent all star type guys. For all he's done as a Cub, Ramirez has never been the best in the league at his position. Lee has usually not been close. Without any true studs, the Cubs have never had people who can carry them and/or make up for lack of production in other spots. In 2008 they had no weak spots, but in every other year this decade they have, some of them black hole type weak spots. And without studs, those weak spots kill you.

[Sammy Sofa]

It seems multiple people are thinking I'm saying that the Cubs shouldn't have signed Lee and Aramis or that their contracts were unreasonable or bad singings; I'm not. I'm saying that when a team's payroll is able to top out near $150 million then Aramis and Lee should not and cannot be expected to be the very best offensive players that that team has. That's not saying they shouldn't have been signed; I'm saying that if almost $150 million is spent and they're expected to be the offensive cornerstones then something's been fucked up.

[jersey cubs fan]

It seems multiple people are thinking I'm saying that the Cubs shouldn't have signed Lee and Aramis or that their contracts were unreasonable or bad singings; I'm not. I'm saying that when a team's payroll is able to top out near $150 million then Aramis and Lee should not and cannot be expected to be the very best offensive players that that team has. That's not saying they shouldn't have been signed; I'm saying that if almost $150 million is spent and they're expected to be the offensive cornerstones then something's been [expletive] up.

 

Absolutely. Ramirez is a fabulous second banana. Lee has on occasion been a star, but he's usually just an also ran in the 1B department. The really good lineups have ARod or Manny or Pujols or Utley. If you are a huge budget team, you should have one of that type of player, plus the Aramis type.

[Sammy Sofa]

It seems multiple people are thinking I'm saying that the Cubs shouldn't have signed Lee and Aramis or that their contracts were unreasonable or bad singings; I'm not. I'm saying that when a team's payroll is able to top out near $150 million then Aramis and Lee should not and cannot be expected to be the very best offensive players that that team has. That's not saying they shouldn't have been signed; I'm saying that if almost $150 million is spent and they're expected to be the offensive cornerstones then something's been [expletive] up.

 

Absolutely. Ramirez is a fabulous second banana. Lee has on occasion been a star, but he's usually just an also ran in the 1B department. The really good lineups have ARod or Manny or Pujols or Utley. If you are a huge budget team, you should have one of that type of player, plus the Aramis type.

 

Exactly. Both guys are incredibly useful players to have, but you don't build a team around either one of them as the Cubs attempted to do.

[Tracer Bullet]

It seems multiple people are thinking I'm saying that the Cubs shouldn't have signed Lee and Aramis or that their contracts were unreasonable or bad singings; I'm not. I'm saying that when a team's payroll is able to top out near $150 million then Aramis and Lee should not and cannot be expected to be the very best offensive players that that team has. That's not saying they shouldn't have been signed; I'm saying that if almost $150 million is spent and they're expected to be the offensive cornerstones then something's been [expletive] up.

 

Absolutely. Ramirez is a fabulous second banana. Lee has on occasion been a star, but he's usually just an also ran in the 1B department. The really good lineups have ARod or Manny or Pujols or Utley. If you are a huge budget team, you should have one of that type of player, plus the Aramis type.

 

you guys, you can't sign ARod or Utley AND Ramirez and Lee and still have $5m to throw at middle relievers and 2 years of Neifi Perez.

[jersey cubs fan]

It seems multiple people are thinking I'm saying that the Cubs shouldn't have signed Lee and Aramis or that their contracts were unreasonable or bad singings; I'm not. I'm saying that when a team's payroll is able to top out near $150 million then Aramis and Lee should not and cannot be expected to be the very best offensive players that that team has. That's not saying they shouldn't have been signed; I'm saying that if almost $150 million is spent and they're expected to be the offensive cornerstones then something's been [expletive] up.

 

Absolutely. Ramirez is a fabulous second banana. Lee has on occasion been a star, but he's usually just an also ran in the 1B department. The really good lineups have ARod or Manny or Pujols or Utley. If you are a huge budget team, you should have one of that type of player, plus the Aramis type.

 

you guys, you can't sign ARod or Utley AND Ramirez and Lee and still have $5m to throw at middle relievers and 2 years of Neifi Perez.

You can always find room for Neifi. He's like Jell-O.

[lumafia]

In Hendry's defense (I can't believe I'm saying that), when healthy, Lee has been more productive since the extension. This year has certainly been an unusual year for Lee, and if he were on his career averages from the past 5 years, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

 

Nonsense. Lee was nearly just as bad from May 2008-April 2009. He's had a very unspectaculiar career for a 1B, with a couple stand out years.

 

 

Hogwash. Didn't Lee finish 09 with a .972 OPS? His numbers have been better since the extension. Based on 162 game averages, his OPS prior to his extension with the Cubs in 06, his career OPS was .847. After the extension, his career OPS is .877. It depends on how you would define "spectacular", but i think he has been very good, and deserves the contract he got.

 

Also, he has had a .908 OPS in a Cub uni, which puts him among the top 20 active OPS in all of baseball right now.

 

If you remove his 2 worst years and his 2 best years, he still has a career OPS of .871, which is very respectable. Also, having the 122nd highest OPS in the history of MLB baseball is spectacular.

[Tracer Bullet]

A bunch of the money committed on offense for the Cubs is in Ramirez and Lee. ARam has been a "sure thing" guy - not top of the league production, but very consistent and very good. Very much worth his contract up to this season. Lee hasn't been as consistent, but Hendry couldn't know he would break his wrist shortly after signing that deal. After Lee finally got 100%, he had another very good year. I think that if Furcal never happened, we'd all be plenty happy with that contract, as well.

 

Lee and Aramis are like the last guys I think of on this team in terms of having bad contracts. My point is that the teams with big payrolls tend to lock up most of their money in good players whereas the Cubs seem to love spreading it around too much overpaying for the wrong guys time and time again.

 

by "spreading it around overpaying for the wrong guys" are you talking about wasting it on the bench (ETA: I shouldn't say bench, it's not limited to that, but role players, platoon players, etc) and RPs that combine to eat up the payroll or the Z and Soriano contracts? I don't think Hendry has a different approach than other high payroll teams. I just think he's bad at identifying truly great players (which I think he believed Soriano and Z to be, he may have also seen Lee that way after 05).

[Sammy Sofa]

by "spreading it around overpaying for the wrong guys" are you talking about wasting it on the bench and RPs that combine to eat up the payroll or the Z and Soriano contracts?

 

Both.

[lumafia]

It seems multiple people are thinking I'm saying that the Cubs shouldn't have signed Lee and Aramis or that their contracts were unreasonable or bad singings; I'm not. I'm saying that when a team's payroll is able to top out near $150 million then Aramis and Lee should not and cannot be expected to be the very best offensive players that that team has. That's not saying they shouldn't have been signed; I'm saying that if almost $150 million is spent and they're expected to be the offensive cornerstones then something's been [expletive] up.

 

Absolutely. Ramirez is a fabulous second banana. Lee has on occasion been a star, but he's usually just an also ran in the 1B department. The really good lineups have ARod or Manny or Pujols or Utley. If you are a huge budget team, you should have one of that type of player, plus the Aramis type.

 

I agree. As I said earlier, the biggest mistakes Hendry has made has been who he has chosen to spend the big money on, and who he has chosen to spend any money on. I guess we have to live with Soriano and Z to be our A-Rod and Sabathia.

[jersey cubs fan]

In Hendry's defense (I can't believe I'm saying that), when healthy, Lee has been more productive since the extension. This year has certainly been an unusual year for Lee, and if he were on his career averages from the past 5 years, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

 

Nonsense. Lee was nearly just as bad from May 2008-April 2009. He's had a very unspectaculiar career for a 1B, with a couple stand out years.

 

 

Hogwash. Didn't Lee finish 09 with a .972 OPS? His numbers have been better since the extension. Based on 162 game averages, his OPS prior to his extension with the Cubs in 06, his career OPS was .847. After the extension, his career OPS is .877. It depends on how you would define "spectacular", but i think he has been very good, and deserves the contract he got.

 

Also, he has had a .908 OPS in a Cub uni, which puts him among the top 20 active OPS in all of baseball right now.

 

If you remove his 2 worst years and his 2 best years, he still has a career OPS of .871, which is very respectable. Also, having the 122nd highest OPS in the history of MLB baseball is spectacular.

 

Lee sucks this year, but he also sucked from May 2008 - April 2009. This is not unprecedented. I'm not saying he didn't necessarily deserve his contract, but he's been a second rate 1B the vast majority of his career, and should not be a high payroll team's three hitter year in year out.

[Tracer Bullet]

by "spreading it around overpaying for the wrong guys" are you talking about wasting it on the bench and RPs that combine to eat up the payroll or the Z and Soriano contracts?

 

Both.

 

Do you think that's really different than most big payroll teams? Maybe he spends more on RPs and role players than other teams, but I don't know the details of some other rosters. Seems to me like he just picks the wrong guys to go after.