2012 - Throw away/Go for it?

[Guest]

BTW - Danks's similarity score...

 

Matt Garza (971)

Ron Bryant (968)

Greg Hibbard (966)

Donovan Osborne (964)

Luis Leal (960)

Johnny Kucks (959)

Bob Hendley (959)

Allan Anderson (956)

Kid Madden (956)

Saul Rogovin (955)

[Sammy Sofa]

Why the [expletive] had I been thinking Danks was 30?

[toonsterwu]

I'm not always sure what they mean when people say 2012 isn't realistic or whatever.

 

I don't think it's realistic that the 2012 Cubs go into April with the best team on paper in the division, unless that idle speculation about a $200 million total baseball budget are true.

 

I think it's very realistic that the 2012 Cubs go into April as a .500 team on paper. From there, there's some sort of chance that several players have better seasons than expected (say, 5 guys at +0.8 WAR each), they get some positive pythagorean variance and then they get some deadline help. That puts you in the 90-win range, and as the Cardinals keep proving, being the worst team in the playoffs doesn't hurt your chances that much.

 

Sure, it could just as easily go the other way, but what's the point of fielding a baseball team if you aren't going to try.

 

the point I was trying to make is this - we should try to avoid getting ourselves into the financial bind that we are currently in. I'm not saying we throw away 2012, but we need to make smart decisions when you yourself acknowledge that we would need to get lucky (add in that, barring an extremely fortunate year in the system, we likely don't have the chips to make significant midseason trades). Kenney and Hendry were told to get aggressive, and that opened up a small window for us, with damaging long term consequences financially. Do we gun for that small window, or do we gun for the overall picture, while staying competitive in the short term?

 

There are always enough free agents to sign/people to trade for that could turn things around. Considering the multiple holes on the team, it might even be prudent to make, say, 1 big signings and 5-7 medium ones, instead of 2 big signings and a couple small ones instead, for example.

 

Anyhow, it's just discussion. I'm not asking them to throw away the season. I'm hoping that they will keep an eye out on the long term development that is needed to build a consistent winner that might not need as much luck to win a title.

Do we even have 5-7 spots to fill for next season?

 

Was really speaking more hypothetically when I typed that. That said, it really comes down to how Epstein and Co. evaluate the talent. There's certainly enough guys that can be released off the 40.

[toonsterwu]

the point I was trying to make is this - we should try to avoid getting ourselves into the financial bind that we are currently in. I'm not saying we throw away 2012, but we need to make smart decisions when you yourself acknowledge that we would need to get lucky (add in that, barring an extremely fortunate year in the system, we likely don't have the chips to make significant midseason trades). Kenney and Hendry were told to get aggressive, and that opened up a small window for us, with damaging long term consequences financially. Do we gun for that small window, or do we gun for the overall picture, while staying competitive in the short term?

 

There are always enough free agents to sign/people to trade for that could turn things around. Considering the multiple holes on the team, it might even be prudent to make, say, 1 big signings and 5-7 medium ones, instead of 2 big signings and a couple small ones instead, for example.

 

Anyhow, it's just discussion. I'm not asking them to throw away the season. I'm hoping that they will keep an eye out on the long term development that is needed to build a consistent winner that might not need as much luck to win a title.

 

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 the 2nd part is somewhat debatable. Again, I'm more concerned about years than money, as I noted initially. Pujols is in his early 30's. Unless he's an exception to the rule, father time will catch up soon and you never know how fast a guy can slip. I'm not saying he'll go from star to irrelevant, but he could be a significant burden a few years down the road. I mean, Alex Rodriguez has really fallen of late and is a significant burden.

 

Fielder is a different equation, due to his youth. I'm just not keen on giving any player 7-8 year deals, but of the two, I'd be more open to that.

[Sammy Sofa]

Pujols is better than ARod.

[davearm2]

Pujols is better than ARod.

Doesn't mean the shape of their career WARP curves aren't likely to mirror each other when all is said and done. And if so, the point about Pujols being a significant liability in the second half of his next deal is very valid. In fact I think that's essentially a given.

[toonsterwu]

Pujols is better than ARod.

right now he is, but ARod' renegotiated deal started the year after he posted 9.8 WAR. Entering 2008, he was in his age 32/33 season. Pujols is entering his age 32 season and has had two years where his performance has slipped a bit. If he's looking for a gigantic deal that is 7 or more years, how certain are you that he won't decline in 2-3 years the way ARod is? Now that we aren't in the steroid era anymore, the expectation should be for normal human declines, and mid-30's was typically the area where decline started to happen. Everyone is different, but therein lies my concern with a Pujols deal.

[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.

 

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.

IMO we're seeing Fielder's prime right now. I don't see him being more than a 5-6 win guy going forward.

[Sammy Sofa]

Pujols is better than ARod.

Doesn't mean the shape of their career WARP curves aren't likely to mirror each other when all is said and done. And if so, the point about Pujols being a significant liability in the second half of his next deal is very valid. In fact I think that's essentially a given.

 

Nobody's arguing that he wouldn't decline over the course of a 6-10 contract at this point in his career. The point in him being better than ARod is that it means there's a very good chance that his decline would still leave him at a level where he's better than most longer than the typical player, or even someone at ARod's level.

 

Do you want the Cubs to not sign either Pujols or Fielder?

[davearm2]

Pujols is better than ARod.

right now he is, but ARod' renegotiated deal started the year after he posted 9.8 WAR. Entering 2008, he was in his age 32/33 season. Pujols is entering his age 32 season and has had two years where his performance has slipped a bit. If he's looking for a gigantic deal that is 7 or more years, how certain are you that he won't decline in 2-3 years the way ARod is? Now that we aren't in the steroid era anymore, the expectation should be for normal human declines, and mid-30's was typically the area where decline started to happen. Everyone is different, but therein lies my concern with a Pujols deal.

Another impact of the end of the steroid era -- we have to question whether the next wave of superstars will remain productive as long as guys like Manny and Bonds did.

[Guest]

IMO we're seeing Fielder's prime right now. I don't see him being more than a 5-6 win guy going forward.

Gut instinct or any particular reason?

[Sammy Sofa]

Pujols is better than ARod.

right now he is, but ARod' renegotiated deal started the year after he posted 9.8 WAR. Entering 2008, he was in his age 32/33 season.

 

That's fantastic. Pujols has been a better player leading up to his age 32 season than ARod. He has more room to decline and still be an upper tier player.

[davearm2]

Pujols is better than ARod.

Doesn't mean the shape of their career WARP curves aren't likely to mirror each other when all is said and done. And if so, the point about Pujols being a significant liability in the second half of his next deal is very valid. In fact I think that's essentially a given.

 

Nobody's arguing that he wouldn't decline over the course of a 6-10 contract at this point in his career. The point in him being better than ARod is that it means there's a very good chance that his decline would still leave him at a level where he's better than most longer than the typical player, or even someone at ARod's level.

 

Do you want the Cubs to not sign either Pujols or Fielder?

Best case is you give 'em a deal with an opt-out, and they take the opt out.

 

The Yankees should have let ARod walk. And they should let CC walk too, if they get that chance this year.

[Sammy Sofa]

Pujols is better than ARod.

right now he is, but ARod' renegotiated deal started the year after he posted 9.8 WAR. Entering 2008, he was in his age 32/33 season. Pujols is entering his age 32 season and has had two years where his performance has slipped a bit. If he's looking for a gigantic deal that is 7 or more years, how certain are you that he won't decline in 2-3 years the way ARod is? Now that we aren't in the steroid era anymore, the expectation should be for normal human declines, and mid-30's was typically the area where decline started to happen. Everyone is different, but therein lies my concern with a Pujols deal.

Another impact of the end of the steroid era -- we have to question whether the next wave of superstars will remain productive as long as guys like Manny and Bonds did.

 

So there weren't players productive into their mid-30's prior to the "steroid era?"

[davearm2]

IMO we're seeing Fielder's prime right now. I don't see him being more than a 5-6 win guy going forward.

Gut instinct or any particular reason?

I don't think his hitting will exceed a 1.000 OPS, give or take. He's done that three times. He could maintain that level, but I don't think he elevates those numbers meaningfully going forward. And his fielding and baserunning have noplace to go but down IMO.

[davearm2]

Pujols is better than ARod.

right now he is, but ARod' renegotiated deal started the year after he posted 9.8 WAR. Entering 2008, he was in his age 32/33 season. Pujols is entering his age 32 season and has had two years where his performance has slipped a bit. If he's looking for a gigantic deal that is 7 or more years, how certain are you that he won't decline in 2-3 years the way ARod is? Now that we aren't in the steroid era anymore, the expectation should be for normal human declines, and mid-30's was typically the area where decline started to happen. Everyone is different, but therein lies my concern with a Pujols deal.

Another impact of the end of the steroid era -- we have to question whether the next wave of superstars will remain productive as long as guys like Manny and Bonds did.

 

So there weren't players productive into their mid-30's prior to the "steroid era?"

Of course there were. But the percentages were smaller.

[Sammy Sofa]

It blows my mind how some poeple lose sight of just how incredible a player Pujols is. In no way am I saying he's a lock to still be productive at, say, age 37, but he has such a bigger curve than other players due to how fantastically good he is. Look at how so many of the greats he compares to lasted late into their 30's as productive (or better) players.

[Sammy Sofa]

Pujols is better than ARod.

right now he is, but ARod' renegotiated deal started the year after he posted 9.8 WAR. Entering 2008, he was in his age 32/33 season. Pujols is entering his age 32 season and has had two years where his performance has slipped a bit. If he's looking for a gigantic deal that is 7 or more years, how certain are you that he won't decline in 2-3 years the way ARod is? Now that we aren't in the steroid era anymore, the expectation should be for normal human declines, and mid-30's was typically the area where decline started to happen. Everyone is different, but therein lies my concern with a Pujols deal.

Another impact of the end of the steroid era -- we have to question whether the next wave of superstars will remain productive as long as guys like Manny and Bonds did.

 

So there weren't players productive into their mid-30's prior to the "steroid era?"

Of course there were. But the percentages were smaller.

 

Pujols compares to a lot of guys like that. That level of talent tends to allow such players to age more gracefully than the usual rabble.

[Sammy Sofa]

Pujols is better than ARod.

Doesn't mean the shape of their career WARP curves aren't likely to mirror each other when all is said and done. And if so, the point about Pujols being a significant liability in the second half of his next deal is very valid. In fact I think that's essentially a given.

 

Nobody's arguing that he wouldn't decline over the course of a 6-10 contract at this point in his career. The point in him being better than ARod is that it means there's a very good chance that his decline would still leave him at a level where he's better than most longer than the typical player, or even someone at ARod's level.

 

Do you want the Cubs to not sign either Pujols or Fielder?

Best case is you give 'em a deal with an opt-out, and they take the opt out.

 

The Yankees should have let ARod walk. And they should let CC walk too, if they get that chance this year.

 

So if they can't sign them with such a clause they shouldn't do so?

 

What if they have the opportunity to sign Kemp after next season? When do you think the Cubs should actually dish out a big contract? Only if the player is homegrown and they can do it earlier in their career? You can talk yourself out of these types of deals, but it's absurd for a team with the Cubs' resources to pass on such players given what they need. This isn't Soriano part deux.

Edited October 22, 2011 by Sammy Sofa

[davell]

Going all in immediately doesn't seem like anything Theo would even think about. You do your player evaluations and just go from there. If you aren't convinced Wilson is the answer, then you pass on him and wait for what you think is a better option down the line. But, that doesn't mean you tank either. Adding a Kuroda, Oswalt, Bedard, or Vazquez helps our rotation quite a bit and all of them should be available on one or two year deals, maybe Oswalt gets 3. But I doubt the others do. It's just checks and balances. We've got Z and Demp gone soon anyway, so we've got to invest in pitching somehow.

[Sammy Sofa]

Man, I haven't even thought about Oswalt. He's always been so adamant about returning after his last contract ended to be with his family.

[Magnetic Curses]

i would love to have Oswalt.

[El Duderino]

Doesn't Oswalt have a chronic back issue?

[mul21]

It blows my mind how some poeple lose sight of just how incredible a player Pujols is. In no way am I saying he's a lock to still be productive at, say, age 37, but he has such a bigger curve than other players due to how fantastically good he is. Look at how so many of the greats he compares to lasted late into their 30's as productive (or better) players.

 

My problem with this line of thinking is that we haven't seen guys of his ilk try to produce late into their 30s outside of the steroid era when pitching is used like it is now. I mean, you're looking at guys who were elite(ish) late in their careers in the 60s-80s before the 6 inning start became prevalent and you're seeing a different reliever every time you come up late in games and those guys are throwing mid to upper 90s pretty regularly. The loss of bat speed, especially against those late inning guys, along with the fact that you're seeing guys be able to give more max effort early in games makes me nervous about aging superstars in the near future.

[Sammy Sofa]

It blows my mind how some poeple lose sight of just how incredible a player Pujols is. In no way am I saying he's a lock to still be productive at, say, age 37, but he has such a bigger curve than other players due to how fantastically good he is. Look at how so many of the greats he compares to lasted late into their 30's as productive (or better) players.

 

My problem with this line of thinking is that we haven't seen guys of his ilk try to produce late into their 30s outside of the steroid era when pitching is used like it is now. I mean, you're looking at guys who were elite(ish) late in their careers in the 60s-80s before the 6 inning start became prevalent and you're seeing a different reliever every time you come up late in games and those guys are throwing mid to upper 90s pretty regularly. The loss of bat speed, especially against those late inning guys, along with the fact that you're seeing guys be able to give more max effort early in games makes me nervous about aging superstars in the near future.

 

Perhaps. I'd still rather they take the chance.