Pujols signs with Angels pg 151

[USSoccer]

Are we all about to start rationalizing why letting Ramirez walk, passing on Pujols and Fielder and trying to build around Castro, a Cuban defector who's workout video was only missing Yao Ming's folding chair, and gambling that Yu Darvish won't suck like every other Japanese import is the best offseason route because we can then go sign Matt Kem...er, build around the draft and compete in 3 years?

 

Because that's a recipe for bad.

Not important, but do you mean Yi Jianlian?

 

Did they both post up folding chairs?

[USSoccer]

Are we all about to start rationalizing why letting Ramirez walk, passing on Pujols and Fielder and trying to build around Castro, a Cuban defector who's workout video was only missing Yao Ming's folding chair, and gambling that Yu Darvish won't suck like every other Japanese import is the best offseason route because we can then go sign Matt Kem...er, build around the draft and compete in 3 years?

 

Because that's a recipe for bad.

 

Sort of. I'm really not sure about Cespedes, but I'm totally sold on Darvish. A 25-year-old who throws in the mid-90s with movement? I'll take my chances. Stuff plays, and he's got the stuff.

 

I don't think the roster we have right now is that bad, and I absolutely have faith in the brain trust to build a competitive team immediately, with or without Pujielder.

 

Are you that sold on Darvish that you're willing to drop upwards of $90m on the guy?

 

For the record, I think the logic I posted sucks. If we miss out on both Pujols and Fielder, we're going to suck. And hard. We can trot out all the platoons and reclamation projects we want, but we're going to be like 72-90.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

 

Are you that sold on Darvish that you're willing to drop upwards of $90m on the guy?

 

For the record, I think the logic I posted sucks. If we miss out on both Pujols and Fielder, we're going to suck. And hard. We can trot out all the platoons and reclamation projects we want, but we're going to be like 72-90.

 

I'd do $90 million total for Darvish. If it gets to nine figures I start to flinch.

 

I think you are underselling them. Last year's team had a fair bit more talent than its record showed. I don't expect .500 to require any extraordinary effort this offseason.

[USSoccer]

 

Are you that sold on Darvish that you're willing to drop upwards of $90m on the guy?

 

For the record, I think the logic I posted sucks. If we miss out on both Pujols and Fielder, we're going to suck. And hard. We can trot out all the platoons and reclamation projects we want, but we're going to be like 72-90.

 

I'd do $90 million total for Darvish. If it gets to nine figures I start to flinch.

 

I think you are underselling them. Last year's team had a fair bit more talent than its record showed. I don't expect .500 to require any extraordinary effort this offseason.

 

Where's the offense going to come from?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Where's the offense going to come from?

 

Platoons, reclamation projects, and bounceback seasons from Soto and Soriano.

[USSoccer]

Where's the offense going to come from?

 

Platoons, reclamation projects, and bounceback seasons from Soto and Soriano.

 

Right. You mineaswell have just said "we're going to all blow out birthday candles before every game and hope our wishes for offensive competency come true".

 

I'm going to draw an analogy here: for like eleventy billion years, about 90% of US Soccer fans wanted us to just straight up imitate Europe. They hate MLS, thety hate US coaches, they hate players that don't play in Europe, even if it's in the Bulgarian 3rd division. So finally they got their wish and we hired some German snake oil salesman, and he used all the Eurospeak that got these guys all wet and peaked. And we sucked. Because the bs he touted didn't translate into results. Instead of integrating the best of our system with the best of Europe, he demolished ours and tried to force his in.

 

I feel like the hiring of Epstein and Hoyer have allowed people to run completely amok with their platoon and WAR fantasies, as if simply taking two guys with platoon splits and certain WAR numbers and putting them together would result into a fully functional offense capable of winning. I can't think of a single winning team that was built around reclamations projects and discarded parts with platoon splits. It makes sense in theory; after all, if you have a LH and a RH, who each bring 1 WAR based on platoon splits and defense and baserunning, have them both play 3B, and voila, you've completely replaced Aramis Ramirez with a 2 WAR player for $3m.

 

As much as I completely believe in stat analysis and SABR and all that jazz, I don't think tossing WAR sums around is the way for a major market team to build a winner.

[davell]

This isn't just about 2012. If our offseason consists of adding Cespedes and Darvish, along with some one year contract guys, I'm going to be OK with that. Because they'll obviously have seen quite a bit from those 2 to have signed them, first and foremost and we'll have quite a bit more cash to work with the following offseason. We need 2 middle of the order hitters and 2 frontline pitchers. If they see Cespedes and Darvish as 2 of those guys, then I'm going to trust them.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Right. You mineaswell have just said "we're going to all blow out birthday candles before every game and hope our wishes for offensive competency come true".

 

blah blah blah soccer

 

I feel like the hiring of Epstein and Hoyer have allowed people to run completely amok with their platoon and WAR fantasies, as if simply taking two guys with platoon splits and certain WAR numbers and putting them together would result into a fully functional offense capable of winning. I can't think of a single winning team that was built around reclamations projects and discarded parts with platoon splits. It makes sense in theory; after all, if you have a LH and a RH, who each bring 1 WAR based on platoon splits and defense and baserunning, have them both play 3B, and voila, you've completely replaced Aramis Ramirez with a 2 WAR player for $3m.

 

As much as I completely believe in stat analysis and SABR and all that jazz, I don't think tossing WAR sums around is the way for a major market team to build a winner.

 

I think you are severely underestimating the value of a good platoon. You can't do it all over the field, but I absolutely believe that you can squeeze decent production out of one or two positions that way. Ideally, you then use your savings to improve the team elsewhere.

 

Runs are runs, whether they are prevented or scored. You don't need a minimum amount of offense to succeed, see the 2010 San Francisco Giants.

 

I'd still rather have Fielder, but I see no reason to think that passing on them means that the 2012 Cubs are dooooooomed.

[weis21]

Sorry. Accidental posting. Edited November 20, 2011 by weis21

[USSoccer]

I think you are severely underestimating the value of a good platoon. You can't do it all over the field, but I absolutely believe that you can squeeze decent production out of one or two positions that way. Ideally, you then use your savings to improve the team elsewhere.

 

Runs are runs, whether they are prevented or scored. You don't need a minimum amount of offense to succeed, see the 2010 San Francisco Giants.

 

I'd still rather have Fielder, but I see no reason to think that passing on them means that the 2012 Cubs are dooooooomed.

 

I agree, one position you can get away with it as long as you have good offensive players at other positions. You can't count on it for multiple positions and expect to be any good.

 

Also, people keep citing the 2010 Giants as some example of how you can suck offensively and still win, but ignore that we have no one at the Lincecum/Cain level and that even then it was by and large kind of flukish. Garza's the closest, but that pitching staff was completely dominant in a way we can't hope to be.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I think you are severely underestimating the value of a good platoon. You can't do it all over the field, but I absolutely believe that you can squeeze decent production out of one or two positions that way. Ideally, you then use your savings to improve the team elsewhere.

 

Runs are runs, whether they are prevented or scored. You don't need a minimum amount of offense to succeed, see the 2010 San Francisco Giants.

 

I'd still rather have Fielder, but I see no reason to think that passing on them means that the 2012 Cubs are dooooooomed.

 

I agree, one position you can get away with it as long as you have good offensive players at other positions. You can't count on it for multiple positions and expect to be any good.

 

Also, people keep citing the 2010 Giants as some example of how you can suck offensively and still win, but ignore that we have no one at the Lincecum/Cain level and that even then it was by and large kind of flukish. Garza's the closest, but that pitching staff was completely dominant in a way we can't hope to be.

 

They also had 94 pythagorean wins. We're talking about not being 72-90.

[Guest]

 

I feel like the hiring of Epstein and Hoyer have allowed people to run completely amok with their platoon and WAR fantasies, as if simply taking two guys with platoon splits and certain WAR numbers and putting them together would result into a fully functional offense capable of winning. I can't think of a single winning team that was built around reclamations projects and discarded parts with platoon splits. It makes sense in theory; after all, if you have a LH and a RH, who each bring 1 WAR based on platoon splits and defense and baserunning, have them both play 3B, and voila, you've completely replaced Aramis Ramirez with a 2 WAR player for $3m.

 

As much as I completely believe in stat analysis and SABR and all that jazz, I don't think tossing WAR sums around is the way for a major market team to build a winner.

Great, great point. Two .5 WAR players don't equal 1 WAR. It doesn't work that way. All you have are two .5 WAR guys sharing one position. In other words, two shitty players does not equal one mediocre player.

 

If WAR is supposed to be additive it's any even worse metric than I assumed.

[CubColtPacer]

 

I feel like the hiring of Epstein and Hoyer have allowed people to run completely amok with their platoon and WAR fantasies, as if simply taking two guys with platoon splits and certain WAR numbers and putting them together would result into a fully functional offense capable of winning. I can't think of a single winning team that was built around reclamations projects and discarded parts with platoon splits. It makes sense in theory; after all, if you have a LH and a RH, who each bring 1 WAR based on platoon splits and defense and baserunning, have them both play 3B, and voila, you've completely replaced Aramis Ramirez with a 2 WAR player for $3m.

 

As much as I completely believe in stat analysis and SABR and all that jazz, I don't think tossing WAR sums around is the way for a major market team to build a winner.

Great, great point. Two .5 WAR players don't equal 1 WAR. It doesn't work that way. All you have are two .5 WAR guys sharing one position. In other words, two [expletive] players does not equal one mediocre player.

 

If WAR is supposed to be additive it's any even worse metric than I assumed.

 

In some ways, WAR is supposed to be added together. If you have two players who combined for all the at-bats at a position and nowhere else and they each put up 1 WAR, then together the position put up 2 WAR. That's perfectly valid. WAR is a counting stat and therefore is greatly affected by how much playing time a player receives.

 

The problem becomes that it's never quite that easy. Players also get pinch-hit appearances and they play other positions from time to time. The value of those would have to be separated out from the value derived just from playing the position in question. Even if you had two players who only played one position, you would still have to account for the value of having lost an extra roster spot and how much that player could have contributed (but in that scenario, your other bench players would get extra playing time to make up for the loss of that bench spot, so a bench spot value would be very hard to calculate). So things get really tricky when trying to figure out how much a platoon will contribute.

[Have a seat, Neifi]

According to an article posted today by Dan LeBatard in the Miami Herald, the Marlins may be shying away from offering Pujols more money because of concerns over his age--concerns that apparently many teams around MLB share:

 

The total dollars are in dispute, depending on whom you believe, but the number of years offered is not. Nine years. That’s insanity, especially since, like a lot of teams, the Marlins believe Pujols to be older than the 31 he claims to be.

 

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/11/20/v-fullstory/2510381/miami-marlins-expensive-experiment.html#ixzz1eHFDC2Ot

 

Obviously LeBatard doesn't back up his statement with anything whatsoever, but thought it was at least worth posting.

 

Link: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/11/20/v-fullstory/2510381/miami-marlins-expensive-experiment.html

[Guest]

Preview of the article I'm writing in the outline format.

 

I've gotten deeper into the comps that I really expected. It is very difficult to make a projection, but I can say that if Pujols is actually older than 31 it would be folly to sign him to a long term deal.

 

Finished article should be up later today with lots of pretty graphs & such. :)

[Hairyducked Idiot]

There's a huge strawman going on in this thread that says that people have argued that you can take two bench players, put them in a platoon, and add their previous WARs together, and get a projection on what they'll do in a platoon.

 

Nobody said that.

 

What has been argued is that a Baker/Lefty third base platoon can have their production projected, and that projection comes out as the equivalent of a single, 2-WAR starter. And if anything, I think that's understating it.

[USSoccer]

There's a huge strawman going on in this thread that says that people have argued that you can take two bench players, put them in a platoon, and add their previous WARs together, and get a projection on what they'll do in a platoon.

 

Nobody said that.

 

What has been argued is that a Baker/Lefty third base platoon can have their production projected, and that projection comes out as the equivalent of a single, 2-WAR starter. And if anything, I think that's understating it.

 

Actually, what I'm saying is that platoons intended to match the production of one actually good player never work out the way you'd think they would simply looking at paper and projecting.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

There's a huge strawman going on in this thread that says that people have argued that you can take two bench players, put them in a platoon, and add their previous WARs together, and get a projection on what they'll do in a platoon.

 

Nobody said that.

 

What has been argued is that a Baker/Lefty third base platoon can have their production projected, and that projection comes out as the equivalent of a single, 2-WAR starter. And if anything, I think that's understating it.

 

Actually, what I'm saying is that platoons intended to match the production of one actually good player never work out the way you'd think they would simply looking at paper and projecting.

 

And I'm questioning what that's based on.

 

Besides, the platoon isn't even the important half of the equation. The point was that Ramirez's asking price was way too much for a 2.5-3.5 WAR player, and that 3b the easiest potential hole to fill internally for this organization, after CF.

[Guest]

Part one of my article on Pujols is up. It got too long to do as one single piece, so I split it up. This part compares Pujols to each of the 10 players he's most similar to through age 31 and looks at the relevance of each for use in projection.

 

I'll get part two with the actual projections up after the Bears game.

[USSoccer]

 

And I'm questioning what that's based on.

 

Besides, the platoon isn't even the important half of the equation. The point was that Ramirez's asking price was way too much for a 2.5-3.5 WAR player, and that 3b the easiest potential hole to fill internally for this organization, after CF.

 

So there was less risk in paying Ramirez, lets say $50m over 4 years than paying over $90m for a Japanese import and $40m for a Cuban defector? (yes in retrospect it doesn't sound like Aramis was even interested in coming back)

 

Your logic of Ramirez's asking price being too much seems to me to be immediately contradicted by being so willing to drop giant money on two complete unknowns.

[Guest]

Ramirez is like 7-9 years older than Darvish/Cespedes. For their risk, those imports represent an attempt to win now and win later with a long term deal. Ramirez represents only the win now, and since we would have less room to add long term pieces with his new contract on the books, he would jeopardize the ability to add guys who can win later too.

 

Cespedes and Darvish are easy to bring up because they are free agents, but the more likely option, as has been the case with the vast majority of our lasting upgrades in production, is that it comes through the trade market.

[USSoccer]

Ramirez is like 7-9 years older than Darvish/Cespedes. For their risk, those imports represent an attempt to win now and win later with a long term deal. Ramirez represents only the win now, and since we would have less room to add long term pieces with his new contract on the books, he would jeopardize the ability to add guys who can win later too.

 

Cespedes and Darvish are easy to bring up because they are free agents, but the more likely option, as has been the case with the vast majority of our lasting upgrades in production, is that it comes through the trade market.

 

But they're also complete unknowns with regards to their ability to be any good at the major league level. Why piss away money on two question marks at all? They are just as likely to be completely useless as they are decent, and if they are useless, where are you at?

 

This argument isn't just about Ramirez, either. It's about being turned off by paying Fielder $150m but being totally willing to roll the dice with $150m on those two.

[davearm2]

For the record, I think the logic I posted sucks. If we miss out on both Pujols and Fielder, we're going to suck. And hard. We can trot out all the platoons and reclamation projects we want, but we're going to be like 72-90.

You realize that's actually an argument for *not* signing either of these guys. Finishing 79-83 rather than 72-90 is kinda pointless.

 

You sign a guy like this when you've got a team that's 82-80 (or better) without them.

 

The question, how far away are the Cubs from having that 82-80 team? And what will be the impact-player alternatives at that time?

 

I realize nobody wants to suck. But let's think about this objectively.

[Guest]

I shouldn't have posted the article during the bears game. :(

[USSoccer]

For the record, I think the logic I posted sucks. If we miss out on both Pujols and Fielder, we're going to suck. And hard. We can trot out all the platoons and reclamation projects we want, but we're going to be like 72-90.

You realize that's actually an argument for *not* signing either of these guys. Finishing 79-83 rather than 72-90 is kinda pointless.

 

You sign a guy like this when you've got a team that's 82-80 (or better) without them.

 

The question, how far away are the Cubs from having that 82-80 team? And what will be the impact-player alternatives at that time?

 

I realize nobody wants to suck. But let's think about this objectively.

 

So again, we're totally cool with gambling $150m on the two guys with zero MLB experience but investing that money in a cornerstone player would be a waste?