2012 - Throw away/Go for it?

[dew1679666265]

I just think the question posed by the title of this thread is shortsighted; it's not an either/or option to be all in for 2012 or just "giving up" as a part of a rebuilding process. The Cubs can be, as most have pointed out, competitive next year without shooting for the moon and going with a "win now" approach. In this division being competitive next season can mean winning 85 games. That would be a huge step in the right direction.

 

Exactly. Just like arguing that signing Pujols/Prince and Wilson would be short term, win-now moves when they're likely to still be exceptionally productive over the next 3-5 years. We have a chance to get star players who can help us a great deal for multiple years, we should do it as part of building a long term core and if we win in 2012, it's a bonus.

[dew1679666265]

Yes to Wilson, yes to Maholm assuming he's healthy but a big fat no to Jackson. Dont get me wrong, I think he's a very solid mid-rotation guy but I think that the weak FA SP class is going to drive his price higher than any team should pay for a mid rotatiom guy but smeone will anyway. I mentioed in another thread that Joe Saunders is another guy that will likely be available, probably for cheaper in trade than guys like Danks, Floyd, or any of the Rays guys.

 

I'm not very interested in Jackson or Maholm, but I'm more interested in them than Buerhle. Jackson and Buerhle are both likely candidates to get overpaid once Wilson is off the table and that's my main reason for having little interest in either. If I had to choose from Jackson or Buerhle, however, I'd take the 28 year old over the 33 year old when both have been similarly productive.

 

What's the interest in Saunders? He'll be 31 next year and his average WAR per season is 1.4. His lowest xFIP in a full season is 4.38. He's not very good.

[UK1679666180]

We tried to win it all quickly after 2006 and that failed miserably and left us with this [expletive] product. Slow and steady wins the race. Let's do this [expletive] in 3 years.

 

i tend to agree, in that there's no reason to hand out a bunch of monster contracts and screw the organization for years if 35 year old pujols or 35 year old sabathia aren't that good any more. i don't care about adding a big contract, but mortgaging the future to try to win immediately is a dumbass move when your core is pretty lacking.

 

Not worry about it, let them build the structure and philosophy and if it takes a few years before we start seeing the positive effects or if they go after a big name FA, so be it. It would take careers bouncing back and/or the best off-season ever for them to become competitive combined with Pujols and Fielder leaving the division. It's possible just not very likely.

 

We already know they are more concerned with building from within, right there should explain what to expect. Any short-term success should be an added bonus towards long-term goals.

[pccubfan]

Not living near Chicago, I don't know the story on Buehrle. Is he not talked about because he hates the Cubs, because he played for the Sox, or are people just giving him to the Cards? He's getting up in years but he could be interesting on a three year deal.

 

The lack of interest in Buerhle, at least on my part, is due to him being 33 when the season starts next year and likely declining rather than in his prime or improving. I'd go after Wilson, E Jackson, Maholm, and trade targets before I gave Buerhle a 3 year deal covering his ages 33,34,35 seasons.

 

I can understand concern about his age but he has been pretty consistent over his last five years and he seems to be the type of pitcher that ages well. I wouldn't go all in on him, but if other teams were balking due to his age, I would probably kick the tires.

[dew1679666265]

I can understand concern about his age but he has been pretty consistent over his last five years and he seems to be the type of pitcher that ages well. I wouldn't go all in on him, but if other teams were balking due to his age, I would probably kick the tires.

 

If his price is low and we give Z away, I'd have interest in Buerhle too. I tend to think he'll be fairly sought after and will probably get overpaid. The problem with Buerhle is that he's not been so good that he can decline and still be particularly valuable. He's a low-3 WAR guy at this point and if he gets worse, you're looking at high 1 WAR, low 2 WAR. If he's getting $10+ million, I'm not a big fan of that.

[UK1679666180]

I can understand concern about his age but he has been pretty consistent over his last five years and he seems to be the type of pitcher that ages well. I wouldn't go all in on him, but if other teams were balking due to his age, I would probably kick the tires.

 

If his price is low and we give Z away, I'd have interest in Buerhle too. I tend to think he'll be fairly sought after and will probably get overpaid. The problem with Buerhle is that he's not been so good that he can decline and still be particularly valuable. He's a low-3 WAR guy at this point and if he gets worse, you're looking at high 1 WAR, low 2 WAR. If he's getting $10+ million, I'm not a big fan of that.

 

I'd rather see them not go after someone who will get paid more for being durable rather than production. The Cubs are in a better position to go for a cheaper lightning in a bottle risk/reward than go for a safer more expensive option. Buerhle isn't a game changer for the Cubs, if they had a rotation similar to when they brought in Marquis, I could see that but it's not similar right now.

[pccubfan]

I can understand concern about his age but he has been pretty consistent over his last five years and he seems to be the type of pitcher that ages well. I wouldn't go all in on him, but if other teams were balking due to his age, I would probably kick the tires.

 

If his price is low and we give Z away, I'd have interest in Buerhle too. I tend to think he'll be fairly sought after and will probably get overpaid. The problem with Buerhle is that he's not been so good that he can decline and still be particularly valuable. He's a low-3 WAR guy at this point and if he gets worse, you're looking at high 1 WAR, low 2 WAR. If he's getting $10+ million, I'm not a big fan of that.

 

He's going to give you roughly what Dempster gives you. You're probably correct about him being overpaid but a Ted Lilly type deal 3-30 to 3-33 would definitely cause me to consider.

[pccubfan]

I can understand concern about his age but he has been pretty consistent over his last five years and he seems to be the type of pitcher that ages well. I wouldn't go all in on him, but if other teams were balking due to his age, I would probably kick the tires.

 

If his price is low and we give Z away, I'd have interest in Buerhle too. I tend to think he'll be fairly sought after and will probably get overpaid. The problem with Buerhle is that he's not been so good that he can decline and still be particularly valuable. He's a low-3 WAR guy at this point and if he gets worse, you're looking at high 1 WAR, low 2 WAR. If he's getting $10+ million, I'm not a big fan of that.

 

I'd rather see them not go after someone who will get paid more for being durable rather than production. The Cubs are in a better position to go for a cheaper lightning in a bottle risk/reward than go for a safer more expensive option. Buerhle isn't a game changer for the Cubs, if they had a rotation similar to when they brought in Marquis, I could see that but it's not similar right now.

 

I'm not a huge fan of Buehrle just thought he could be interesting. If you could sign him for three years for $10/$11 million per, and get his 3.5 WAR production each of those years then I'd be interested. He slips in nice as a three (hopefully a four with Cashner moving ahead in 2013), along with Garza and one of the many prospective FAs from the 2012 class. I wouldn't be interested if it took more than three years or more than $11 million per year.

[Guest]

We tried to win it all quickly after 2006 and that failed miserably and left us with this [expletive] product. Slow and steady wins the race. Let's do this [expletive] in 3 years.

 

i tend to agree, in that there's no reason to hand out a bunch of monster contracts and screw the organization for years if 35 year old pujols or 35 year old sabathia aren't that good any more. i don't care about adding a big contract, but mortgaging the future to try to win immediately is a dumbass move when your core is pretty lacking.

 

 

I know you were just tossing an example out there, but do you really think 35 year old Pujols isn't going to be a very good player?

[dew1679666265]

I'd rather see them not go after someone who will get paid more for being durable rather than production. The Cubs are in a better position to go for a cheaper lightning in a bottle risk/reward than go for a safer more expensive option. Buerhle isn't a game changer for the Cubs, if they had a rotation similar to when they brought in Marquis, I could see that but it's not similar right now.

 

That's why I strongly favor Wilson to Buerhle, and don't have much interest in Buerhle.

[UK1679666180]

I can understand concern about his age but he has been pretty consistent over his last five years and he seems to be the type of pitcher that ages well. I wouldn't go all in on him, but if other teams were balking due to his age, I would probably kick the tires.

 

If his price is low and we give Z away, I'd have interest in Buerhle too. I tend to think he'll be fairly sought after and will probably get overpaid. The problem with Buerhle is that he's not been so good that he can decline and still be particularly valuable. He's a low-3 WAR guy at this point and if he gets worse, you're looking at high 1 WAR, low 2 WAR. If he's getting $10+ million, I'm not a big fan of that.

 

I'd rather see them not go after someone who will get paid more for being durable rather than production. The Cubs are in a better position to go for a cheaper lightning in a bottle risk/reward than go for a safer more expensive option. Buerhle isn't a game changer for the Cubs, if they had a rotation similar to when they brought in Marquis, I could see that but it's not similar right now.

 

I'm not a huge fan of Buehrle just thought he could be interesting. If you could sign him for three years for $10/$11 million per, and get his 3.5 WAR production each of those years then I'd be interested. He slips in nice as a three (hopefully a four with Cashner moving ahead in 2013), along with Garza and one of the many prospective FAs from the 2012 class. I wouldn't be interested if it took more than three years or more than $11 million per year.

 

I worry about his FB, I know he tops at 89 (sits 86) and has for much of his career but his FB was just tagged last year. I see him getting a 3yr 33mil type of deal. Not saying it's a bad idea going after him (depending on price), given where the Cubs are at and more importantly where they're long-term, I don't him to become a negative once the Cubs start acquiring above avg. talent for the rotation and/or have a better use for that salary 3 years from now.

[dew1679666265]

He's going to give you roughly what Dempster gives you. You're probably correct about him being overpaid but a Ted Lilly type deal 3-30 to 3-33 would definitely cause me to consider.

 

That would be best case scenario. Considering we'd have him for his ages 33-35 seasons, my point is he may well decline from the 3.4 or so WAR player he's been. Even if he declines some, he becomes not close to worth what he'd get. Even if he ages well, he probably will still decline to some degree.

 

If we were getting a 29 or 30 year old Buerhle, I might change my mind. But a 33 year old Buerhle isn't very enticing.

[XZero771679666304]

How about signing Wilson and trading for Danks?

 

A Wilson/Garza/Dempster/Danks/Cashner or Wells rotation wouldn't be too shabby.

 

That said, I think Wilson probably ends up with the Yankees.

[Guest]

What do people anticipate Danks costing?

 

 

Kenny apparently said today that he's open to trading guys, but not for minor league talent.

[CubInOK]

Sign Albert and Prince. Force the NL to adopt the DH.

[pccubfan]

He's going to give you roughly what Dempster gives you. You're probably correct about him being overpaid but a Ted Lilly type deal 3-30 to 3-33 would definitely cause me to consider.

 

That would be best case scenario. Considering we'd have him for his ages 33-35 seasons, my point is he may well decline from the 3.4 or so WAR player he's been. Even if he declines some, he becomes not close to worth what he'd get. Even if he ages well, he probably will still decline to some degree.

 

If we were getting a 29 or 30 year old Buerhle, I might change my mind. But a 33 year old Buerhle isn't very enticing.

 

So you don't have the same concern about paying Wilson much more than Buehrle for those same 33-35 seasons and beyond? I understand he has more room to fall in order to be average. I also understand that he doesn't have as many pitches on that arm, but he could become a huge burden at the end of his contract. He is going to command a salary that you can't afford to have him fall back a whole lot.

[XZero771679666304]

What do people anticipate Danks costing?

 

 

Kenny apparently said today that he's open to trading guys, but not for minor league talent.

 

But he said that in regard to the team's young core. Danks is arbitration eligible and I don't think he falls into the "core" category.

[Cubswin11]

What do people anticipate Danks costing?

 

 

Kenny apparently said today that he's open to trading guys, but not for minor league talent.

If they want major league talent would they have interest in Byrd or Barney? It would obviously take more than just one of those guys but it could be a start.

[Guest]

What do people anticipate Danks costing?

 

 

Kenny apparently said today that he's open to trading guys, but not for minor league talent.

 

But he said that in regard to the team's young core. Danks is arbitration eligible and I don't think he falls into the "core" category.

 

 

Yea... I probably shouldn't have put those two statements together.

 

Either way, how much might Danks cost? I'd like the pickup.

[UK1679666180]

I'd rather see them not go after someone who will get paid more for being durable rather than production. The Cubs are in a better position to go for a cheaper lightning in a bottle risk/reward than go for a safer more expensive option. Buerhle isn't a game changer for the Cubs, if they had a rotation similar to when they brought in Marquis, I could see that but it's not similar right now.

 

That's why I strongly favor Wilson to Buerhle, and don't have much interest in Buerhle.

 

Yeah, but I don't see the Cubs being a player for the best arm on the market.

 

In order for me. (top 5 MLB arms)

 

Wilson

Jackson

Maholm

Bedard

Vazquez

[pccubfan]

What do people anticipate Danks costing?

 

 

Kenny apparently said today that he's open to trading guys, but not for minor league talent.

If they want major league talent would they have interest in Byrd or Barney? It would obviously take more than just one of those guys but it could be a start.

 

If I were Williams it would take Jackson and a little more.

[Sammy Sofa]

He's going to give you roughly what Dempster gives you. You're probably correct about him being overpaid but a Ted Lilly type deal 3-30 to 3-33 would definitely cause me to consider.

 

That would be best case scenario. Considering we'd have him for his ages 33-35 seasons, my point is he may well decline from the 3.4 or so WAR player he's been. Even if he declines some, he becomes not close to worth what he'd get. Even if he ages well, he probably will still decline to some degree.

 

If we were getting a 29 or 30 year old Buerhle, I might change my mind. But a 33 year old Buerhle isn't very enticing.

 

So you don't have the same concern about paying Wilson much more than Buehrle for those same 33-35 seasons and beyond? I understand he has more room to fall in order to be average. I also understand that he doesn't have as many pitches on that arm, but he could become a huge burden at the end of his contract. He is going to command a salary that you can't afford to have him fall back a whole lot.

 

The big difference is that Wilson has been a starter for a much shorter period of time than Buerhle. Buerhle has pitched just under 2500 innings (Just over 2000 when he finished up his age 30 season like Wilson is). CJ Wilson has thrown just over 700 innings. There's a LOT less wear and tear on Wilson's body.

 

That said, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to Buerhle if he could be had for the right price and number of years. He's going to be declining, but some of that might be offset by a switch to the NL.

[davearm2]

The way you avoid a financial bind the Cubs were just in is two fold:

 

1) Develop a strong farm system that consistently pumps out cheap, productive major leaguers. We didn't do that during Hendry's tenure, so we had to sign both major stars and role players to multi-million dollar deals. A team with the Cubs' budget can do one of the two but not both.

 

2) Don't sign non-star players to star contracts. We did this with Soriano and it hurt us significantly. The thing is, none of the FAs mentioned are anything like Soriano, other than they're very expensive. Pujols/Prince/Wilson are stars and it's ok to give star contracts to star players.

 

If you can do these two things, it's ok to give out a couple or three massive contracts when your payroll is $130-$150 million. Having Pujols and Wilson taking up $50 million of our annual budget when Z comes off the books next year, Soriano comes off in 2014, and we have lots of good prospects set to hit the majors over the next couple of years, and having Theo/Hoyer/McLeod to turn our system into a machine is perfectly fine. It certainly won't necessarily lead to a similar financial bind we found ourselves in under Hendry.

I think everyone agrees with these points, but it seems curious to classify Fielder as a star player and post-2006 vintage Soriano as non-star. Soriano's WARP numbers from 02-06 look an awful lot like Fielder's from 07-11:

 

5.1 5.7

1.7 5

6.4 2.1

3.4 2.3

5.5 5.3

22.1 20.4

 

Soriano represented a larger risk of age-related decline, but Fielder represents a larger risk of weight-related decline.

 

If you don't like the Soriano contract, then it's pretty hard to justify offering the same deal to Fielder. And you probably can't even get Fielder @ Soriano's numbers.

[pccubfan]

I'd rather see them not go after someone who will get paid more for being durable rather than production. The Cubs are in a better position to go for a cheaper lightning in a bottle risk/reward than go for a safer more expensive option. Buerhle isn't a game changer for the Cubs, if they had a rotation similar to when they brought in Marquis, I could see that but it's not similar right now.

 

That's why I strongly favor Wilson to Buerhle, and don't have much interest in Buerhle.

 

Yeah, but I don't see the Cubs being a player for the best arm on the market.

 

In order for me. (top 5 MLB arms)

 

Wilson

Jackson

Maholm

Bedard

Vazquez

 

If the Cubs had a stronger group of near ready major league starters I could be persuaded to take a risk on Bedard. If Cashner truly needs to work out of the pen next year, then McNutt is all you really have to fall back on and that is a little scary considering his issues last year. It seems like Lopez/Ortiz/Coleman Part II.

[pccubfan]

The way you avoid a financial bind the Cubs were just in is two fold:

 

1) Develop a strong farm system that consistently pumps out cheap, productive major leaguers. We didn't do that during Hendry's tenure, so we had to sign both major stars and role players to multi-million dollar deals. A team with the Cubs' budget can do one of the two but not both.

 

2) Don't sign non-star players to star contracts. We did this with Soriano and it hurt us significantly. The thing is, none of the FAs mentioned are anything like Soriano, other than they're very expensive. Pujols/Prince/Wilson are stars and it's ok to give star contracts to star players.

 

If you can do these two things, it's ok to give out a couple or three massive contracts when your payroll is $130-$150 million. Having Pujols and Wilson taking up $50 million of our annual budget when Z comes off the books next year, Soriano comes off in 2014, and we have lots of good prospects set to hit the majors over the next couple of years, and having Theo/Hoyer/McLeod to turn our system into a machine is perfectly fine. It certainly won't necessarily lead to a similar financial bind we found ourselves in under Hendry.

I think everyone agrees with these points, but it seems curious to classify Fielder as a star player and post-2006 vintage Soriano as non-star. Soriano's WARP numbers from 02-06 look an awful lot like Fielder's from 07-11:

 

5.1 5.7

1.7 5

6.4 2.1

3.4 2.3

5.5 5.3

22.1 20.4

 

Soriano represented a larger risk of age-related decline, but Fielder represents a larger risk of weight-related decline.

 

If you don't like the Soriano contract, then it's pretty hard to justify offering the same deal to Fielder. And you probably can't even get Fielder @ Soriano's numbers.

 

Fielder going into his prime is probably going to put up better numbers than all but Soriano's first season with the Cubs. If Fielder gets an eight year deal like Soriano got, I could see the last year or two looking pretty bad.