Aramis Ramirez’s 2012 Option Does NOT Vest if He’s Traded

[Guest]

His past two fully healthy seasons were 2008 and 2011 - his OPS dropped 30 points from the former to the latter and UZR/150 dropped considerably as well. However, he is still a productive player right now when healthy. But when a guy has been hurt for significant portions of 2 of the past 3 years and has a long history of injury issues (minor primarily, but still injuries) previously, expecting him to remain healthy for his age 34 and 35 seasons is a little like putting a wolf in with a sheep and expecting the wolf not to eat the sheep. It could happen, but it's not something I'd put money on.

 

This doesn't account for his defense but NL OPS dropped 34 points from 2008 to 2011 and NL 3B OPS dropped 74 points. Overall MLB it was 30 and 69 points. Aramis' OPS+ is also 10 points higher (second highest of his career). B-R has his WAR down by nearly a win but that's mostly due to the defense as his oWAR went from 4.7 to 4.5.

[dew1679666265]

This doesn't account for his defense but NL OPS dropped 34 points from 2008 to 2011 and NL 3B OPS dropped 74 points. Overall MLB it was 30 and 69 points. Aramis' OPS+ is also 10 points higher (second highest of his career). B-R has his WAR down by nearly a win but that's mostly due to the defense as his oWAR went from 4.7 to 4.5.

 

That's exactly why I think we can manage with lesser offense at third if it means a huge improvement in the rotation. A Flaherty/Baker platoon isn't going to give us the .867 OPS Aramis did this year, but they should be able to stay well above the .701 OPS which is the midpoint line in team OPS at third. Couple that with Aramis' age, health, and steadily declining defense and as much as I like him, it simply doesn't seem prudent to bring him back at the cost of CJ Wilson.

[dew1679666265]

It's possible that we could get someone like Mark DeRosa, Mike Cameron, or Andruw Jones on a 1 year 1 mil type contract.

 

And none of them are as young or healthy as Jeff Baker.

[Little Slide Rooter]

It's possible that we could get someone like Mark DeRosa, Mike Cameron, or Andruw Jones on a 1 year 1 mil type contract.

 

And none of them are as young or healthy as Jeff Baker.

 

Yes, but there's a solid chance they'd be better, and for a 1 year deal, I'd be willing to take the chance.

[KingCubsFan]

It's possible that we could get someone like Mark DeRosa, Mike Cameron, or Andruw Jones on a 1 year 1 mil type contract.

 

And none of them are as young or healthy as Jeff Baker.

 

Yes, but there's a solid chance they'd be better, and for a 1 year deal, I'd be willing to take the chance.

Mark DeRosa hasn't been better than Jeff Baker since the first half of 2009.

[KingCubsFan]

This doesn't account for his defense but NL OPS dropped 34 points from 2008 to 2011 and NL 3B OPS dropped 74 points. Overall MLB it was 30 and 69 points. Aramis' OPS+ is also 10 points higher (second highest of his career). B-R has his WAR down by nearly a win but that's mostly due to the defense as his oWAR went from 4.7 to 4.5.

 

That's exactly why I think we can manage with lesser offense at third if it means a huge improvement in the rotation. A Flaherty/Baker platoon isn't going to give us the .867 OPS Aramis did this year, but they should be able to stay well above the .701 OPS which is the midpoint line in team OPS at third. Couple that with Aramis' age, health, and steadily declining defense and as much as I like him, it simply doesn't seem prudent to bring him back at the cost of CJ Wilson.

This year was an aberration for third basemen due to so many injuries to good players. I don't think it's the new norm. I don't know how you can be so certain that a borderline top 10 guy in a mediocre farm system can step in and be a capable starter right away. Flaherty isn't even as highly regarded as Brent Morel, and look how that turned out for the White Sox (yes, I saw the fangraphs article the other day so I know he's improved the past few weeks).

[dew1679666265]

It's possible that we could get someone like Mark DeRosa, Mike Cameron, or Andruw Jones on a 1 year 1 mil type contract.

 

And none of them are as young or healthy as Jeff Baker.

 

Yes, but there's a solid chance they'd be better, and for a 1 year deal, I'd be willing to take the chance.

 

They could be, though there's also a very good chance that if you bring Aramis back and deal Byrd, you have Baker in your lineup for 40+ games anyway (at third) as well as the Colvin/whoever platoon.

 

Because of the very high injury risk surrounding Aramis, I don't think you make other areas of the team worse in order to keep him. If Ricketts bumps up payroll, then I have no problem bringing Aramis back. But the high risk associated with bringing back a 34 year old, injury prone third baseman makes me hesitate downgrading other areas in an effort to keep him, because if he goes down for an extended period then the team is weak in multiple areas.

[dew1679666265]

This year was an aberration for third basemen due to so many injuries to good players. I don't think it's the new norm. I don't know how you can be so certain that a borderline top 10 guy in a mediocre farm system can step in and be a capable starter right away. Flaherty isn't even as highly regarded as Brent Morel, and look how that turned out for the White Sox (yes, I saw the fangraphs article the other day so I know he's improved the past few weeks).

 

While not quite as bad as this year, third base offense has been pretty poor for a while now. The 2010 team midline OPS was .718 and .736 in 2009. There were 10 teams each of the past two years with 3B OPS' over .800, while there are only 7 this season, however. I don't know that 3B offense being quite this putrid is a trend, but it's still very easy (relative to offensive positions like 1B and the corner OFs) to put together a platoon that is above league average at third. Unless we see a huge spike that we haven't in the past three years or so.

 

As for Flaherty, I'm in no way certain he'd be a capable starter stepping in right away. However, facing only right handed batters should help him as opposed to starting against everybody. And if he isn't good, then you try LeMaheieu or go grab somebody off the FA market. The key point is that I'm far more confident we can get league average production from a Flaherty/Baker platoon than that we can get much of anything out of whatever the fifth starter situation would be if we pass on Wilson and go with one of McNutt/Whitenack/Cashner/Struck/Lopez/Bush/JJackson/etc.

[bukie]

While not quite as bad as this year, third base offense has been pretty poor for a while now. The 2010 team midline OPS was .718 and .736 in 2009. There were 10 teams each of the past two years with 3B OPS' over .800, while there are only 7 this season, however. I don't know that 3B offense being quite this putrid is a trend, but it's still very easy (relative to offensive positions like 1B and the corner OFs) to put together a platoon that is above league average at third. Unless we see a huge spike that we haven't in the past three years or so.

 

If it was that easy to get average offense at 3B, more than half the teams in the league would be doing it, and the average would be higher. Never thought I'd see the day where the Cubs offense at 3B would be taken for granted.

[jersey cubs fan]

While not quite as bad as this year, third base offense has been pretty poor for a while now. The 2010 team midline OPS was .718 and .736 in 2009. There were 10 teams each of the past two years with 3B OPS' over .800, while there are only 7 this season, however. I don't know that 3B offense being quite this putrid is a trend, but it's still very easy (relative to offensive positions like 1B and the corner OFs) to put together a platoon that is above league average at third. Unless we see a huge spike that we haven't in the past three years or so.

 

If it was that easy to get average offense at 3B, more than half the teams in the league would be doing it, and the average would be higher. Never thought I'd see the day where the Cubs offense at 3B would be taken for granted.

 

A decade of steady and solid production has blinded people. And for some reason, a whole series of middling prospects that failed to fill-in at a reasonable level has escaped notice at the same time.

[Backtobanks]

The problem with using the "league average" at 3B is that some teams have above average production at other positions. Back when Sandberg was playing 2B, you could afford to have less production at some other "offensive" position.

[Guest]

The problem with using the "league average" at 3B is that some teams have above average production at other positions. Back when Sandberg was playing 2B, you could afford to have less production at some other "offensive" position.

1) "Back when we had Castro at SS, we could afford to have less production at some other "offensive" positions."

 

2) Dew is driving at the point that we could invest $16M at 3B and accept mediocrity somewhere else, or we could invest somewhere else and accept mediocrity at 3B. You're investing the same and getting equivalent short term production. But he's saying there's less short term injury risk and much more long term value in the other options.

 

3) Dew is also saying is that it is "easy" to find league average production at 3B for the Cubs because they already have half a platoon that is a good bet to put up an .850 OPS versus lefties. That means the Cubs only have to find someone that can hit righties at around a .650 clip to achieve league average.

[jersey cubs fan]

The problem with using the "league average" at 3B is that some teams have above average production at other positions. Back when Sandberg was playing 2B, you could afford to have less production at some other "offensive" position.

1) "Back when we had Castro at SS, we could afford to have less production at some other "offensive" positions."

 

2) Dew is driving at the point that we could invest $16M at 3B and accept mediocrity somewhere else, or we could invest somewhere else and accept mediocrity at 3B. You're investing the same and getting equivalent short term production. But he's saying there's less short term injury risk and much more long term value in the other options.

 

3) Dew is also saying is that it is "easy" to find league average production at 3B for the Cubs because they already have half a platoon that is a good bet to put up an .850 OPS versus lefties. That means the Cubs only have to find someone that can hit righties at around a .650 clip to achieve league average.

 

Then who replaces Baker as the primary RH bat off the bench, plus OF/2B depth? There's a hell of a lot more righty pitchers out there and finding the guy who can hit them is much more important and much harder to do. It's completely unnecessary to make this move, but if you do you more or less write off 2012, which is a dumb idea.

[Guest]

The problem with using the "league average" at 3B is that some teams have above average production at other positions. Back when Sandberg was playing 2B, you could afford to have less production at some other "offensive" position.

1) "Back when we had Castro at SS, we could afford to have less production at some other "offensive" positions."

 

2) Dew is driving at the point that we could invest $16M at 3B and accept mediocrity somewhere else, or we could invest somewhere else and accept mediocrity at 3B. You're investing the same and getting equivalent short term production. But he's saying there's less short term injury risk and much more long term value in the other options.

 

3) Dew is also saying is that it is "easy" to find league average production at 3B for the Cubs because they already have half a platoon that is a good bet to put up an .850 OPS versus lefties. That means the Cubs only have to find someone that can hit righties at around a .650 clip to achieve league average.

 

Then who replaces Baker as the primary RH bat off the bench, plus OF/2B depth? There's a hell of a lot more righty pitchers out there and finding the guy who can hit them is much more important and much harder to do. It's completely unnecessary to make this move, but if you do you more or less write off 2012, which is a dumb idea.

Pretty silly to say that if you pass on re-signing Aramis that you automatically write off 2012. Considering that freeing up that salary could be useful in doing something like:

 

1) signing Fielder

2) signing Wilson

3) or trading for Kemp

 

I think all those players provide more short term and long term value and present less short term risk than Ramirez. So if you apply his $16M to one of those players you get a net upgrade for the team and still have money left to plug other holes. The in-house options to fill 3B may not be exceptional, but they are numerous and wouldn't have to be world-beaters if we sufficiently upgrade elsewhere.

 

Not to mention our type B compensation would help make up for a top prospect going away in a trade.

[Magnetic Curses]

i'd rather have fielder and wilson and keep jackson.

[Guest]

This is all predicated on some faulty assumptions. The most obvious:

 

Jeff Baker is half a platoon, because he can't hit righties, he on the low end of an 80/20 split

 

Letting Aramis walk means the will get whomever they want. As goony pointed out earlier, letting the teams best hitter go would not be a good sign to any potential FA.

 

Letting Aramis walk and replacing him league average production is ok if they get some one to replace his production elsewhere. It puts them in the same place as 2011.

 

Aramis is a good bet to get hurt or decline significantly. It's not.

 

To me the safest thing for the Cubs is to resign him and try to get a team friendly deal given what he said is true. In my opinion there is no reason why they can't keep him and pursue Fielder and bolster the SP.

[Guest]

Letting Aramis walk and replacing him league average production is ok if they get some one to replace his production elsewhere. It puts them in the same place as 2011.

 

Not if the player they acquire is better than what Aramis will do in 2012 and beyond.

 

Aramis is a good bet to get hurt or decline significantly. It's not.

 

He was significantly worse and hurt in both 2009 and 2010, and he'll be 34 next year.

 

To me the safest thing for the Cubs is to resign him and try to get a team friendly deal given what he said is true. In my opinion there is no reason why they can't keep him and pursue Fielder and bolster the SP.

 

If that can add up, then awesome. But that looks to be unlikely, and then all you've done is ensure you've gotten someone whose utility to the team sloping downwards, while making it near impossible to compete while he's still useful.

[CubColtPacer]

This is all predicated on some faulty assumptions. The most obvious:

 

Jeff Baker is half a platoon, because he can't hit righties, he on the low end of an 80/20 split

 

Letting Aramis walk means the will get whomever they want. As goony pointed out earlier, letting the teams best hitter go would not be a good sign to any potential FA.

 

Letting Aramis walk and replacing him league average production is ok if they get some one to replace his production elsewhere. It puts them in the same place as 2011.

 

Aramis is a good bet to get hurt or decline significantly. It's not.

 

To me the safest thing for the Cubs is to resign him and try to get a team friendly deal given what he said is true. In my opinion there is no reason why they can't keep him and pursue Fielder and bolster the SP.

 

Aramis has to be a pretty good bet to miss at least 30-40 games. He's done it 4 out of the last 7 years.

 

And how are they going to fit all those upgrades within the payroll? After Aramis and Fielder, the payroll is pretty much gone. I'd be open to signing him to a very team friendly deal but that necessitates declining his option first.

 

To me, I don't see how the Cubs can compete with accepting Aramis's option. They just have too little payroll to work with after that to get the upgrades they need. I'd decline his option, float a 2/20 deal his way (8 the first year (which includes the buyout), 12 the second) and live with it when he inevitably declines it. And if the Cubs are very unlikely to compete with Aramis, then why keep him around when they could be using that money on players who will help them for longer and who are very likely to be just as valuable as Aramis is?

[Backtobanks]

As many of us have pointed out, Baker's numbers against lefties would only be about 20% of the playing time.

I still think Ramirez will be willing to re-sign at a hometown discount. I also think that some team is going to make a ridiculous offer to either Fielder and/or Wilson, so that the Cubs won't get both of them regardless of who is playing 3B. I do realize we have as much money as anyone this offseason, but all it takes is 2 crazy offers (without re-signing Ramirez) to make a pretty ugly team for 3-4 years.

[dew1679666265]

1) "Back when we had Castro at SS, we could afford to have less production at some other "offensive" positions."

 

2) Dew is driving at the point that we could invest $16M at 3B and accept mediocrity somewhere else, or we could invest somewhere else and accept mediocrity at 3B. You're investing the same and getting equivalent short term production. But he's saying there's less short term injury risk and much more long term value in the other options.

 

3) Dew is also saying is that it is "easy" to find league average production at 3B for the Cubs because they already have half a platoon that is a good bet to put up an .850 OPS versus lefties. That means the Cubs only have to find someone that can hit righties at around a .650 clip to achieve league average.

 

You said it better in one post than I did in about 3 pages.

[dew1679666265]

As many of us have pointed out, Baker's numbers against lefties would only be about 20% of the playing time.

I still think Ramirez will be willing to re-sign at a hometown discount. I also think that some team is going to make a ridiculous offer to either Fielder and/or Wilson, so that the Cubs won't get both of them regardless of who is playing 3B. I do realize we have as much money as anyone this offseason, but all it takes is 2 crazy offers (without re-signing Ramirez) to make a pretty ugly team for 3-4 years.

 

And all it takes is the nearly inevitable moment that Pujols hits FA and for CC to opt out (less inevitable) to increase the odds of landing both Fielder and Wilson significantly. And what if you bring back Aramis and pass on Wilson and then Aramis plays 82 games again next year like he did last year? Then you're really got a pitiful team because you weren't even planning on not having a third baseman.

 

You keep talking like bringing Aramis back does not involve a huge amount of risk in and of itself - it does. Aramis has not been healthy for 2 of the past 3 years and there's a very strong likelihood that he'll be hurt for a substantial portion of next year.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

This is all predicated on some faulty assumptions. The most obvious:

 

Jeff Baker is half a platoon, because he can't hit righties, he on the low end of an 80/20 split

 

Letting Aramis walk means the will get whomever they want. As goony pointed out earlier, letting the teams best hitter go would not be a good sign to any potential FA.

 

Letting Aramis walk and replacing him league average production is ok if they get some one to replace his production elsewhere. It puts them in the same place as 2011.

 

Aramis is a good bet to get hurt or decline significantly. It's not.

 

To me the safest thing for the Cubs is to resign him and try to get a team friendly deal given what he said is true. In my opinion there is no reason why they can't keep him and pursue Fielder and bolster the SP.

 

This, especially what's in bold. It'd cause a slight raise over this year's payroll probably/maybe, but it'd be worth it because the team would be significantly better sooner going this route. Fielder/Ramirez/Castro would be one of the best offensive infield trios in baseball.

 

Didn't the Cubs wait a good 30 years for a 3B as good as Ramirez? Why lose him when he's still a pretty damn good hitter/player?

[Guest]

Didn't the Cubs wait a good 30 years for a 3B as good as Ramirez? Why lose him when he's still a pretty damn good hitter/player?

Study Branch Rickey.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

Didn't the Cubs wait a good 30 years for a 3B as good as Ramirez? Why lose him when he's still a pretty damn good hitter/player?

Study Branch Rickey.

 

Overall, you've got me there. I'd still rather not lose a really good player to downgrade to a 25 year old rookie/Jeff Baker platoon. There's got to be a better idea than that. Nor do I think that would help in pursuing those FAs. I also think it'd be weird to sign two top tier FAs while weakening an already pretty bad team (after Ramirez and Castro the next best bat is good year Soto, then whoever you want to pick between Byrd/Soriano). If they let Ramirez go then an idea more reliable than Flaherty/Baker would have to come into play.

 

Also, how can a prospect be handed the majority of 3B PAs/ABs and LeMahieu's not even in the conversation to be that guy?

[Backtobanks]

As many of us have pointed out, Baker's numbers against lefties would only be about 20% of the playing time.

I still think Ramirez will be willing to re-sign at a hometown discount. I also think that some team is going to make a ridiculous offer to either Fielder and/or Wilson, so that the Cubs won't get both of them regardless of who is playing 3B. I do realize we have as much money as anyone this offseason, but all it takes is 2 crazy offers (without re-signing Ramirez) to make a pretty ugly team for 3-4 years.

 

And all it takes is the nearly inevitable moment that Pujols hits FA and for CC to opt out (less inevitable) to increase the odds of landing both Fielder and Wilson significantly. And what if you bring back Aramis and pass on Wilson and then Aramis plays 82 games again next year like he did last year? Then you're really got a pitiful team because you weren't even planning on not having a third baseman.

 

You keep talking like bringing Aramis back does not involve a huge amount of risk in and of itself - it does. Aramis has not been healthy for 2 of the past 3 years and there's a very strong likelihood that he'll be hurt for a substantial portion of next year.

 

Let me put it this way, if we let Ramirez walk, we have to sign both Fielder and Wilson to have a chance next year. If we sign one of them, we are still at least 1-2 years from competing. God forbid we don't get either of them (a distinct possibility with those 2 crazy offers I mentioned).