2012 - Throw away/Go for it?

[dew1679666265]

Actually Soriano's defense was universally considered below average until he moved off of 2B. That happened one year before he signed with the Cubs.

 

He had a 5.7 and 5.0 WAR season while in New York and UZR didn't like his defense, his other seasons in NY and Texas were .2, 2.1, 2.3, and then he had a 5.3 WAR his last year in Texas when his defense jumped to 6.6. Prince has had three seasons so far that were higher than 5 WAR and the highest his UZR was during that time has been 1.7. Soriano's 7.0 WAR season with the Cubs was helped greatly by a 33.6 UZR.

 

And keep in mind, Prince has been younger than Soriano was. Soriano was 27 when he posted his first 5+ WAR season. Prince was 23 when he posted his first 5+ WAR season. That's significant.

 

Anyway, I maintain that a big fat 28 year old Fielder represents as much or more risk of decline as a lithe and athletic 31 year old Soriano.

 

My guess is, so long as he stays healthy, Fielder will hit about like he has to this point. The rest of his game will slide.

 

If we give Fielder an 8 year deal, there's no doubt in my mind he'll decline during that contract. However, I don't see any reason to believe he can't improve going forward and he likely won't have the dramatic fall Soriano has because Prince isn't an impatient hacker that Sori is. Prince is a disciplined, patient hitter and that can help keep his overall numbers boosted a bit over a guy who relies on slugging and stolen bases for his offensive value.

[toonsterwu]

Hence, my 2nd point. To what extent is the offensive decline of Pujols the last 2 years an anomaly or a sign of things to come? There are some interesting numbers to look at, and there were times this year when he wasn't catching up to fastballs as much as he had in the past.

 

Definitely things to consider. The bottom line is that it's likely impossible to have a concrete answer along those lines when it comes time to decide whether or not they want to sign him. There's always going to be an inherent risk.

 

Okay, we've come to a point of agreement. Thus, my point in a post above - I'm always wary of long term deals, I guess, but if you could somehow frontload the deal and take advantage of say, Z and Soriano's contracts expiring by spiking a FA contract up in those years, I'd feel much better about any long term ramifications. It isn't just the decline the worries me ... it's the potential of a decline PLUS a backloaded deal. And with some of the numbers floating out there on Pujols potential AAV (weren't they suggesting 25-30 million at some point, a backloaded deal could see the back end in the 30+ range) ... it's definitely something to be concerned about, IMO.

 

Why would you rather frontload the deal? Backloading is almost always a better option for a team financially.

 

Nominally, it would be, but I would rather protect against the back end of a deal in a situation like Pujols (where he would get a long term deal and likely be in his late 30's) to give us more flexibility down the line at that point. If we fail to win now, and end up having Pujols at say, some ridiculous 30+ numbers down the line that could account for 25+% of the budget, it could be a troubling situation to work out of. It really depends on the club's financial picture, which we can make some assumptions now, but can't clearly say for certain. That said, if the space is available to frontload it and offer us more flexibility on the back end, then I think I would prefer that. I mean, on 3-5 year deals, I would probably rather backload it (granted, again, depends on the financial situation of the club), but we're likely looking at 5-8 year deals for the big ticket items this winter, particularly Pujols and Fielder. In general, I believe a smart front office should be looking at the financial numbers and making them fit so that the club isn't tied down long term and we are able to continue a run of success akin to the Red Sox last decade.

 

As a side note, I realized what contract I was thinking of that was a bit front-loaded, and that was Theo's contract to John Lackey, which was 18 mil the first year, with 15.25 the last 4. So ... maybe this is a stronger possibility than I thought (a front loaded deal of some sort).

[dew1679666265]

I think overpaying could win us the deal, as it seems like the rumors suggest that he's targeting a specific number, perhaps 100 mil. That said, 5/100 for Wilson? Ugh. I guess it's passable, as you hope he has strong performances for 2-3 years, but still ... 5/100 for him is pretty ... ugh.

 

I wouldn't do 5/100 for Wilson. I'd probably stop at 5/90 (18 per). I'm in favor of heavily pursuing Wilson, but not signing him at any cost. My argument has been that there's no reason not to pursue him.

[toonsterwu]

I think overpaying could win us the deal, as it seems like the rumors suggest that he's targeting a specific number, perhaps 100 mil. That said, 5/100 for Wilson? Ugh. I guess it's passable, as you hope he has strong performances for 2-3 years, but still ... 5/100 for him is pretty ... ugh.

 

I wouldn't do 5/100 for Wilson. I'd probably stop at 5/90 (18 per). I'm in favor of heavily pursuing Wilson, but not signing him at any cost. My argument has been that there's no reason not to pursue him.

 

Even 5/90 makes me stomach churn a bit. That said, considering the club's rotation situation and lack of a high volume of top tier arms in the upper levels, it's a move you try to make and hope it turns out like Dempster, who was well worth it early in his contract.

[dew1679666265]

Nominally, it would be, but I would rather protect against the back end of a deal in a situation like Pujols (where he would get a long term deal and likely be in his late 30's) to give us more flexibility down the line at that point. If we fail to win now, and end up having Pujols at say, some ridiculous 30+ numbers down the line that could account for 25+% of the budget, it could be a troubling situation to work out of. It really depends on the club's financial picture, which we can make some assumptions now, but can't clearly say for certain. That said, if the space is available to frontload it and offer us more flexibility on the back end, then I think I would prefer that. I mean, on 3-5 year deals, I would probably rather backload it (granted, again, depends on the financial situation of the club), but we're likely looking at 5-8 year deals for the big ticket items this winter, particularly Pujols and Fielder. In general, I believe a smart front office should be looking at the financial numbers and making them fit so that the club isn't tied down long term and we are able to continue a run of success akin to the Red Sox last decade.

 

As a side note, I realized what contract I was thinking of that was a bit front-loaded, and that was Theo's contract to John Lackey, which was 18 mil the first year, with 15.25 the last 4. So ... maybe this is a stronger possibility than I thought (a front loaded deal of some sort).

 

As long as we keep our payroll around $150+ (which has been rumored the past few days), Pujols would never be close to 25% of our budget. If he were to make $30 million next year and we had a $150 million payroll, he would account for 20% of our payroll. If payroll holds at $130 million next year and Pujols makes $30 million, he would be 23% of our budget. Ricketts has given no indication he'll do anything but raise our payroll, so the percentage that Pujols takes of our budget will either hold consistent at 20% or less or it will drop consistently.

 

And ARod is also heavily front loaded, by the way. He's actually a really good deal right now, I think making less than $20 million/yr.

[toonsterwu]

Wasn't the 150 million number for the entire baseball ops, and not the MLB payroll? I thought Levine or someone said it was for the entirety of baseball ops, which would include the 15-20 million or so that the Cubs probably have budgeted for amateur signings.

[dew1679666265]

Even 5/90 makes me stomach churn a bit. That said, considering the club's rotation situation and lack of a high volume of top tier arms in the upper levels, it's a move you try to make and hope it turns out like Dempster, who was well worth it early in his contract.

 

Look at Cashner in the majors (or AAA) right now, McNutt/Whitenack/Struck at the upper end of our system, Wells/Liria/Peralta/Maples/etc at the lower end of it, and then at Theo, Hoyer, McLeod in the front office. We have an excellent chance of having Wilson, Garza, and then 3 cheap options to fill out our rotation. Paying lots of money to two elite arms and significantly less to the other 3 rotation spots is completely palatable for a big market team.

 

Obviously we have to get the farm going for that to work, but there's a lot of options to make the majors and we have some of the best minor league guys in the majors in our front office.

[Sammy Sofa]

Nominally, it would be, but I would rather protect against the back end of a deal in a situation like Pujols (where he would get a long term deal and likely be in his late 30's) to give us more flexibility down the line at that point. If we fail to win now, and end up having Pujols at say, some ridiculous 30+ numbers down the line that could account for 25+% of the budget, it could be a troubling situation to work out of. It really depends on the club's financial picture, which we can make some assumptions now, but can't clearly say for certain. That said, if the space is available to frontload it and offer us more flexibility on the back end, then I think I would prefer that. I mean, on 3-5 year deals, I would probably rather backload it (granted, again, depends on the financial situation of the club), but we're likely looking at 5-8 year deals for the big ticket items this winter, particularly Pujols and Fielder. In general, I believe a smart front office should be looking at the financial numbers and making them fit so that the club isn't tied down long term and we are able to continue a run of success akin to the Red Sox last decade.

 

As a side note, I realized what contract I was thinking of that was a bit front-loaded, and that was Theo's contract to John Lackey, which was 18 mil the first year, with 15.25 the last 4. So ... maybe this is a stronger possibility than I thought (a front loaded deal of some sort).

 

I don't agree with a frontloaded contract with Pujols at all. You need the payroll flexibility with him early in the deal to maximize what he's bringing to the team, not vice-versa. Frontloading it limits the team's ability to build a team around him when he's going to be best under this contract.

[CubColtPacer]

Nominally, it would be, but I would rather protect against the back end of a deal in a situation like Pujols (where he would get a long term deal and likely be in his late 30's) to give us more flexibility down the line at that point. If we fail to win now, and end up having Pujols at say, some ridiculous 30+ numbers down the line that could account for 25+% of the budget, it could be a troubling situation to work out of. It really depends on the club's financial picture, which we can make some assumptions now, but can't clearly say for certain. That said, if the space is available to frontload it and offer us more flexibility on the back end, then I think I would prefer that. I mean, on 3-5 year deals, I would probably rather backload it (granted, again, depends on the financial situation of the club), but we're likely looking at 5-8 year deals for the big ticket items this winter, particularly Pujols and Fielder. In general, I believe a smart front office should be looking at the financial numbers and making them fit so that the club isn't tied down long term and we are able to continue a run of success akin to the Red Sox last decade.

 

As a side note, I realized what contract I was thinking of that was a bit front-loaded, and that was Theo's contract to John Lackey, which was 18 mil the first year, with 15.25 the last 4. So ... maybe this is a stronger possibility than I thought (a front loaded deal of some sort).

 

As long as we keep our payroll around $150+ (which has been rumored the past few days), Pujols would never be close to 25% of our budget. If he were to make $30 million next year and we had a $150 million payroll, he would account for 20% of our payroll. If payroll holds at $130 million next year and Pujols makes $30 million, he would be 23% of our budget. Ricketts has given no indication he'll do anything but raise our payroll, so the percentage that Pujols takes of our budget will either hold consistent at 20% or less or it will drop consistently.

 

And ARod is also heavily front loaded, by the way. He's actually a really good deal right now, I think making less than $20 million/yr.

 

ARod is frontloaded but not that frontloaded. He makes 29, 28, 25, 21, 20, 20 in the last 6 years of his deal.

[dew1679666265]

Wasn't the 150 million number for the entire baseball ops, and not the MLB payroll? I thought Levine or someone said it was for the entirety of baseball ops, which would include the 15-20 million or so that the Cubs probably have budgeted for amateur signings.

 

The numbers I saw reported in the Theo thread were $180 million total baseball budget (presumably $30 million for amateur/minors and $150 for MLB payroll) and $200 million total baseball budget (might be same report but adding in front office salaries, or it might be a different report entirely).

 

Either way, even holding steady at $130 this year, Pujols wouldn't be more than 23% of our budget and then you'd expect payroll to rise in the future considering the revenue we should be bringing in.

[dew1679666265]

ARod is frontloaded but not that frontloaded. He makes 29, 28, 25, 21, 20, 20 in the last 6 years of his deal.

 

Ok, thanks. I was remembering him being at something like $18 or 19 this year, but was going off my memory from a number of months ago.

[Guest]

Wasn't the 150 million number for the entire baseball ops, and not the MLB payroll? I thought Levine or someone said it was for the entirety of baseball ops, which would include the 15-20 million or so that the Cubs probably have budgeted for amateur signings.

 

The numbers I saw reported in the Theo thread were $180 million total baseball budget (presumably $30 million for amateur/minors and $150 for MLB payroll) and $200 million total baseball budget (might be same report but adding in front office salaries, or it might be a different report entirely).

 

Either way, even holding steady at $130 this year, Pujols wouldn't be more than 23% of our budget and then you'd expect payroll to rise in the future considering the revenue we should be bringing in.

 

 

Unless you saw something else, that was just me saying that I heard Levine say something about "around $200M" while talking about the Cubs... but I have no idea what he said it in reference to because I was listening too passively.

 

 

Kaplan's quote from another GM who had interviewed (presumably Hahn) said they'd have a baseball budget of around $150M. But maybe you saw something else.

[dew1679666265]

Keep in mind with a Pujols contract, if he's still extremely productive 5 years into his deal you might have the opportunity to trade him and not have to eat a huge amount of his money. I wouldn't bank on it, but the Angels took Vernon Wells' contract and gave talent in return. Somebody might be willing to take a still highly productive Pujols and his salary for little to nothing in return.

[toonsterwu]

Even 5/90 makes me stomach churn a bit. That said, considering the club's rotation situation and lack of a high volume of top tier arms in the upper levels, it's a move you try to make and hope it turns out like Dempster, who was well worth it early in his contract.

 

Look at Cashner in the majors (or AAA) right now, McNutt/Whitenack/Struck at the upper end of our system, Wells/Liria/Peralta/Maples/etc at the lower end of it, and then at Theo, Hoyer, McLeod in the front office. We have an excellent chance of having Wilson, Garza, and then 3 cheap options to fill out our rotation. Paying lots of money to two elite arms and significantly less to the other 3 rotation spots is completely palatable for a big market team.

 

Obviously we have to get the farm going for that to work, but there's a lot of options to make the majors and we have some of the best minor league guys in the majors in our front office.

 

I was speaking to the volume of talent in the upper levels, not the entire system.

 

Cashner isn't going to hit the rotation until 2013 at earliest, and I really have my doubts that he'll be a starter. He just can't handle the workload next year, but unless you build him up in the minors with regular starts, it's still going to be pretty tough to jump to a full-starter workload in 2013 in the bigs without significant protection. Furthermore, with the chances high that Marmol is gone in a couple seasons, it wouldn't surprise me if they groom Cashner to take over as the closer.

 

I like McNutt, have defended him quite a bit, here and elsewhere, but I do feel like he was over-hyped last year. That said, his breaking ball was nasty when I saw it. With Whitenack, well, TJ normally isn't as big an issue anymore these days, but Whitenack only added the velocity this past year. If he doesn't have the plus velo on the sinker he was showing, he becomes a Randy Wells type. He needs that plus velo to be a mid-rotation starter. I like Struck a lot. I've defended him a ton here, and even convinced one guy on another site that he's a B- worth type of prospect (even though I have him below that). The Cubs have really pushed him, but unless the breaking ball sharpens significantly, he's an end of the rotation guy with a mid-rotation ceiling. I seem to like Rhee more than most, but let's see that slider improve. I like Antigua, but are the secondary pitches legitimately plus? Next year will let us know if he's got plus secondary pitches, or simply above average stuff, which will make a huge difference with a guy like Antigua.

 

It's possible all the guys in the upper levels pan out and we have 3 cheap options. That said, it typically doesn't happen. It was only 1-2 years ago where we were talking about Jay Jackson and Chris Carpenter as potentially useful starters in the rotation.

[dew1679666265]

Unless you saw something else, that was just me saying that I heard Levine say something about "around $200M" while talking about the Cubs... but I have no idea what he said it in reference to because I was listening too passively.

 

 

Kaplan's quote from another GM who had interviewed (presumably Hahn) said they'd have a baseball budget of around $150M. But maybe you saw something else.

 

Went back and checked and I don't know where I got the $180 number. I was thinking about your $200 report and if accurate I figured that'd be the 180 I was thinking about + front office salaries. Apparently I just made up the $180 number, though.

 

Even still, with a $130 payroll, Pujols would be 23% of our budget and still wouldn't be quite 25%+ and there's really no reason not to up payroll as revenue goes up.

[dew1679666265]

I was speaking to the volume of talent in the upper levels, not the entire system.

 

Cashner isn't going to hit the rotation until 2013 at earliest, and I really have my doubts that he'll be a starter. He just can't handle the workload next year, but unless you build him up in the minors with regular starts, it's still going to be pretty tough to jump to a full-starter workload in 2013 in the bigs without significant protection. Furthermore, with the chances high that Marmol is gone in a couple seasons, it wouldn't surprise me if they groom Cashner to take over as the closer.

 

I like McNutt, have defended him quite a bit, here and elsewhere, but I do feel like he was over-hyped last year. That said, his breaking ball was nasty when I saw it. With Whitenack, well, TJ normally isn't as big an issue anymore these days, but Whitenack only added the velocity this past year. If he doesn't have the plus velo on the sinker he was showing, he becomes a Randy Wells type. He needs that plus velo to be a mid-rotation starter. I like Struck a lot. I've defended him a ton here, and even convinced one guy on another site that he's a B- worth type of prospect (even though I have him below that). The Cubs have really pushed him, but unless the breaking ball sharpens significantly, he's an end of the rotation guy with a mid-rotation ceiling. I seem to like Rhee more than most, but let's see that slider improve. I like Antigua, but are the secondary pitches legitimately plus? Next year will let us know if he's got plus secondary pitches, or simply above average stuff, which will make a huge difference with a guy like Antigua.

 

It's possible all the guys in the upper levels pan out and we have 3 cheap options. That said, it typically doesn't happen. It was only 1-2 years ago where we were talking about Jay Jackson and Chris Carpenter as potentially useful starters in the rotation.

 

You just gave a pretty good argument in favor of going after Wilson. We have a number of potentially useful arms in the minors, but no star-potential guys. I realize minor leaguers bust, but if we sign Wilson then we don't need those guys to turn into front end starters. We simply need mid-back rotation guys and the openings for them won't start until 2013-2014 anyway (when Z, Dempster, and Wells likely go).

 

If we had star-level minor leaguers, I'd be against giving Wilson money. But we have quantity over quality, so it makes sense to go sign the elite FA and fill in with role players for the rest of the rotation. Also, don't forget that Theo is pretty good at finding diamond-in-the-rough types.

[davearm2]

Actually Soriano's defense was universally considered below average until he moved off of 2B. That happened one year before he signed with the Cubs.

 

He had a 5.7 and 5.0 WAR season while in New York and UZR didn't like his defense, his other seasons in NY and Texas were .2, 2.1, 2.3, and then he had a 5.3 WAR his last year in Texas when his defense jumped to 6.6. Prince has had three seasons so far that were higher than 5 WAR and the highest his UZR was during that time has been 1.7. Soriano's 7.0 WAR season with the Cubs was helped greatly by a 33.6 UZR.

 

And keep in mind, Prince has been younger than Soriano was. Soriano was 27 when he posted his first 5+ WAR season. Prince was 23 when he posted his first 5+ WAR season. That's significant.

 

Anyway, I maintain that a big fat 28 year old Fielder represents as much or more risk of decline as a lithe and athletic 31 year old Soriano.

 

My guess is, so long as he stays healthy, Fielder will hit about like he has to this point. The rest of his game will slide.

 

If we give Fielder an 8 year deal, there's no doubt in my mind he'll decline during that contract. However, I don't see any reason to believe he can't improve going forward and he likely won't have the dramatic fall Soriano has because Prince isn't an impatient hacker that Sori is. Prince is a disciplined, patient hitter and that can help keep his overall numbers boosted a bit over a guy who relies on slugging and stolen bases for his offensive value.

More or less disciplined and patient than Adam Dunn?

[Sammy Sofa]

OK, now I'm dying to know what point you think you just made.

[dew1679666265]

More or less disciplined and patient than Adam Dunn?

 

Dunn has had 1 season of a 5+ WAR, a career wOBA of .375 and career OBP of .374 and he's 31. Fielder has had 3 seasons of 5+ WAR (one of those over 6), a career .391 wOBA and a career .390 OBP and he's 28. I'm really struggling to see how Dunn is anywhere near the player Prince is.

 

Interesting to note, however, that Dunn still has a similar IsoD to his career level, but this year he had a BABIP of .240 with a LD% of 20.0. Looks like he had some major bad luck this year, especially considering his 9.6% HR/FB ratio, even though he's hitting the ball as hard as he ever has. Even if you view Dunn and Prince as similar players (they aren't), there's plenty of reason to believe Dunn simply hit a major patch of bad luck this year and could rebound with better luck next year.

[Magnetic Curses]

OK, now I'm dying to know what point you think you just made.

 

haha

[toonsterwu]

I was speaking to the volume of talent in the upper levels, not the entire system.

 

Cashner isn't going to hit the rotation until 2013 at earliest, and I really have my doubts that he'll be a starter. He just can't handle the workload next year, but unless you build him up in the minors with regular starts, it's still going to be pretty tough to jump to a full-starter workload in 2013 in the bigs without significant protection. Furthermore, with the chances high that Marmol is gone in a couple seasons, it wouldn't surprise me if they groom Cashner to take over as the closer.

 

I like McNutt, have defended him quite a bit, here and elsewhere, but I do feel like he was over-hyped last year. That said, his breaking ball was nasty when I saw it. With Whitenack, well, TJ normally isn't as big an issue anymore these days, but Whitenack only added the velocity this past year. If he doesn't have the plus velo on the sinker he was showing, he becomes a Randy Wells type. He needs that plus velo to be a mid-rotation starter. I like Struck a lot. I've defended him a ton here, and even convinced one guy on another site that he's a B- worth type of prospect (even though I have him below that). The Cubs have really pushed him, but unless the breaking ball sharpens significantly, he's an end of the rotation guy with a mid-rotation ceiling. I seem to like Rhee more than most, but let's see that slider improve. I like Antigua, but are the secondary pitches legitimately plus? Next year will let us know if he's got plus secondary pitches, or simply above average stuff, which will make a huge difference with a guy like Antigua.

 

It's possible all the guys in the upper levels pan out and we have 3 cheap options. That said, it typically doesn't happen. It was only 1-2 years ago where we were talking about Jay Jackson and Chris Carpenter as potentially useful starters in the rotation.

 

You just gave a pretty good argument in favor of going after Wilson. We have a number of potentially useful arms in the minors, but no star-potential guys. I realize minor leaguers bust, but if we sign Wilson then we don't need those guys to turn into front end starters. We simply need mid-back rotation guys and the openings for them won't start until 2013-2014 anyway (when Z, Dempster, and Wells likely go).

 

If we had star-level minor leaguers, I'd be against giving Wilson money. But we have quantity over quality, so it makes sense to go sign the elite FA and fill in with role players for the rest of the rotation. Also, don't forget that Theo is pretty good at finding diamond-in-the-rough types.

 

Total side note, but you do realize that I haven't disagreed on Wilson, right? I just don't know if we'll win the bidding, or if I'd go to 5/100, but I do agree that we need to make a push there. My issues have more to do with Pujols/Fielder (and I've also said I'm okay with both under certain conditions), unless Wilson gets more than 5 years (I don't think I would ever like giving any pitcher a 6 year deal, unless it's a young guy where you are buying out the cost-controlled years and can swallow the money, which likely wouldn't be a ton).

[dew1679666265]

Total side note, but you do realize that I haven't disagreed on Wilson, right? I just don't know if we'll win the bidding, or if I'd go to 5/100, but I do agree that we need to make a push there. My issues have more to do with Pujols/Fielder (and I've also said I'm okay with both under certain conditions), unless Wilson gets more than 5 years (I don't think I would ever like giving any pitcher a 6 year deal, unless it's a young guy where you are buying out the cost-controlled years and can swallow the money, which likely wouldn't be a ton).

 

I do realize that, I was just trying to assuage your fears of a 5/90 deal for Wilson. We can overpay for elite talent when we have quantity in the minors.

 

And I don't know that we'll win the bidding either. I really hope CC opts out as I think he draws some of the bigger money interest and might take 1-2 teams out of the Wilson bidding.

[davearm2]

More or less disciplined and patient than Adam Dunn?

 

Dunn has had 1 season of a 5+ WAR, a career wOBA of .375 and career OBP of .374 and he's 31. Fielder has had 3 seasons of 5+ WAR (one of those over 6), a career .391 wOBA and a career .390 OBP and he's 28. I'm really struggling to see how Dunn is anywhere near the player Prince is.

 

Interesting to note, however, that Dunn still has a similar IsoD to his career level, but this year he had a BABIP of .240 with a LD% of 20.0. Looks like he had some major bad luck this year, especially considering his 9.6% HR/FB ratio, even though he's hitting the ball as hard as he ever has. Even if you view Dunn and Prince as similar players (they aren't), there's plenty of reason to believe Dunn simply hit a major patch of bad luck this year and could rebound with better luck next year.

They're both very similar hitters -- disciplined and patient I think you called it. They also both have unathletic body types.

 

Does that prove anything definitively? Of course not. Does it cast doubt on your theory about such players aging well? It does for me.

[Guest]

One counterexample casts doubt?

[Sammy Sofa]

Wow, that was it?

 

And declaring Dunn done is jumping the gun just a tad.