Hoyer, McLeod officially join Cubs

[bukie]

Taking a look at BP's WAR numbers, it's amazing how similar Ramirez and Pena were last year overall. The big difference between the two being that Ramirez made much better contact while Pena was had much better strike zone judgment, but the offensive difference was almost completely made up in the defensive gap.

 

Granted, it's also more difficult to find that kind of WAR at 3rd than it is at 1st, but they're practically identical players in terms of overall team value at this point.

[SouthSideRyan]

Granted, it's also more difficult to find that kind of WAR at 3rd than it is at 1st, but they're practically identical players in terms of overall team value at this point.

 

That sounds like a flaw with WAR

[bukie]

Granted, it's also more difficult to find that kind of WAR at 3rd than it is at 1st, but they're practically identical players in terms of overall team value at this point.

 

That sounds like a flaw with WAR

Not really, just that the spectrum from the worst 3B to the best 3B is narrower right now than the spectrum from the worst 1B to the best 1B.

[CubColtPacer]

Is that offense that much worse than this one?

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/SFG/2010.shtml

 

Right. It's clearly not ideal, but having a fantastic pitching staff and a really good defense can work if you get some breaks.

 

A team with a $130m payroll in the NL Central shouldn't have to rely on pitching health and "breaks"

 

No, they shouldn't. But that's the scenario the Cubs have been left with. It's not like if they sign Pujols and Ramirez and call it an offseason (they'd only have a few million left at that point) that they won't be relying on breaks to not be more than average. In that case, they would have a good offense and a terrible pitching staff. Is that better?

 

There really isn't a good way to build a great team for 2012 with the available payroll which is actually an argument against signing Ramirez (since most of his value would come in 2012 while other free agents the Cubs might pursue will be more likely to contribute in future years).

[CubColtPacer]

I've seen this one before. We ended up with Jeromy Burnitz. And then had to overpay for Soriano to make up for it.

 

I'm not following you. How does Jeromy Burnitz compare to Headley or Sizemore and how does Soriano compare to Matt Kemp?

 

Sizemore has been broken for like 2 years now and just got non-tendered by Cleveland. You're hoping you catch lightning in a bottle with him. I have no idea what a Headley is, but it sounds like a league average player. Its settling for like the 5th best options out there.

 

And you're on drugs if you're going to put all your eggs in the "Matt Kemp will definitely hit the market, and when he does we'll sign him so it's ok to pass/miss out on every good offensive player going into 2012 because we'll get Matt Kemp" basket. That's not exactly the kind of sound planning that wins championships.

 

If we sign Pujols or Fielder, fine. Whatever. If we don't, no amount of mental gymnastics and projecting 2013 signings or whatever will make us not suck on offense. There's no really likely scenario where we aren't really below average in 2012 offensively.

 

 

I don't know how likely this is, but if Soto has a 2008/2010 type of year and the Cubs upgrade their backup catcher spot, the Cubs will have basically switched 3rd base for catcher offense next year. That's one decently likely way that the Cubs could have an average offense even with the loss of Ramirez. Upgrading one outfield spot or Castro improvement would help also. It would be very unlikely for the Cubs to be any better than average, but they could make it to average with Pena and no Ramirez (they'll more likely be a little below average though).

[USSoccer]

 

Since all Japanese pitchers are exactly the same? Darvish is far from my #1 target, but there's plenty of reason to believe he can be very successful in the majors.

 

Velocity also continues to add some separation. Darvish has hit 97 mph with his fastball this year, and sat at 94 mph for most of the season. Kei Igawa never averaged better than 90 mph; Daisuke’s best season had him at 92 mph — and even Hideo Nomo wasn’t known for his velocity. Hiroki Kuroda averages 92 mph with his fastball. Here’s the list of qualified American starters who sat better than 94 mph this past season: Alexi Ogando, Justin Verlander, David Price, Michael Pineda, Edwin Jackson and Derek Holland.

 

Matsuzaka had a 2.95 ERA in eight seasons in Japan. He never once had an ERA under 2.00. He had an 8.7 K/9. Darvish just completed his fifth-straight season in which he had an ERA under 2.00 and a whip under 1.00. This year was his finest to date: 16-5, 1.48 ERA, 0.84 WHIP, 240 K, 32 BB, 5 HR in 207 IP (stats as of Sept. 27). Overall, Darvish managed a 1.996 ERA in his seven NPB years, with an 8.9 K/9. Demonstrably better.

 

So...its better to risk twice as much money over probably 3 or 4 more years on this guy?

 

Scouting reports on Matsuzaka were glowing, too.

[toonsterwu]

As for Headley, he's been well above league average third baseman the past couple of years and will be 27 next year - the beginning of his prime. I'm not convinced he'll make a huge jump upon entering his prime years, but if he's going to then next year is the time to do it. He showed solid power in the minors and has always been a patient hitter, so it's not like I'm advocating bringing in a guy with little to no upside.

 

I'm very much in favor of Headly over Ramirez, if the Padres are willing to move him for a reasonable price. He is a better defender and entering his prime.

 

Any idea of what the Padres would require to trade him?

 

It really is still just speculation at this point. There isn't really a single 3rd base name that's been discussed as a trade candidate that will definitely be available. Ian Stewart isn't a lock to be non-tendered or traded, David Wright isn't a guarantee to be moved as he can opt out of 2013 if traded (and the Mets could see if he rebounds in the new Citi Field first). The Padres don't have any serious payroll issues and it's debatable if they have a 3rd baseman that is ready to takeover that they want to turn to (Darnell's glove is sketchy at 3rd and Forsythe's bat is fringy for 3rd).

 

If Headley is moved, though, it'd likely be somewhat costly in terms of prospects. He's a guy entering his prime with 3 cost-controlled years who is likely to be at least around a 3 WAR player for the next few years. There's a chance his power goes back up once he gets out of Petco (and there's hope that it would more than what the home/road split indicates - he made adjustments to his swing and approach, positively, to accommodate for playing in that home park). My guess is that it would take a package starting with McNutt or Szczur to get them interested (I'd obviously hope for less, but I think considering the above dynamics at a weak position, it'd be justified on their part to start things there), but that's my take.

[Exile on Waveland]

While I don't really think the Cubs should sign Ramirez -- I'd very reluctant to sign him to more than two years as I don't think he's going to age well at all -- I am very uncomfortable with the logic that a team can replace a good player with two average-ish players and be little worse for wear. I'm a numbers guy, too, but that seems like computer voodoo that won't actually work in real life; it seems the sort of thing that leads one to never pay actual good players because "eh, we'll just replace them with (insert scrub) and (insert scrub) because they're only worth one less WAR." This is especially true on a team with very few good offensive players.

 

I'm not even totally against replacing Ramirez with in-house options this year -- it may be the only choice -- but I can't fool myself into believing it won't hurt. The offense without Ramirez and without Pujols or Fielders would suck. And hard.

 

Though I do disagree with USSoccer on one point, if the Cubs don't sign Pujols/Fielder, I see no reason they must re-sign Ramirez. Because they'd stink regardless. The Cubs just tried that song and dance; the results next year won't be better (likely worse, because Ramirez will likely be worse).

Edited November 2, 2011 by Exile on Waveland

[Exile on Waveland]

 

Since all Japanese pitchers are exactly the same? Darvish is far from my #1 target, but there's plenty of reason to believe he can be very successful in the majors.

 

Velocity also continues to add some separation. Darvish has hit 97 mph with his fastball this year, and sat at 94 mph for most of the season. Kei Igawa never averaged better than 90 mph; Daisuke’s best season had him at 92 mph — and even Hideo Nomo wasn’t known for his velocity. Hiroki Kuroda averages 92 mph with his fastball. Here’s the list of qualified American starters who sat better than 94 mph this past season: Alexi Ogando, Justin Verlander, David Price, Michael Pineda, Edwin Jackson and Derek Holland.

 

Matsuzaka had a 2.95 ERA in eight seasons in Japan. He never once had an ERA under 2.00. He had an 8.7 K/9. Darvish just completed his fifth-straight season in which he had an ERA under 2.00 and a whip under 1.00. This year was his finest to date: 16-5, 1.48 ERA, 0.84 WHIP, 240 K, 32 BB, 5 HR in 207 IP (stats as of Sept. 27). Overall, Darvish managed a 1.996 ERA in his seven NPB years, with an 8.9 K/9. Demonstrably better.

 

So...its better to risk twice as much money over probably 3 or 4 more years on this guy?

 

Scouting reports on Matsuzaka were glowing, too.

 

Yeah, that's the exact same sort of thing we all heard about Matsuzaka. Don't worry about the transition with this Japanese pitcher. He'll be fine; he's different.

[bukie]

While I don't really think the Cubs should sign Ramirez -- I'd very reluctant to sign him to more than two years as I don't think he's going to age well at all -- I am very uncomfortable with the logic that a team can replace a good player with two average-ish players and be little worse for wear. I'm a numbers guy, too, but that seems like computer voodoo that won't actually work in real life; it seems the sort of thing that leads one to never pay actual good players because "eh, we'll just replace them with (insert scrub) and (insert scrub) because they're only worth one less WAR." This is especially true on a team with very few good offensive players.

 

I'm not even totally against replacing Ramirez with in-house options this year -- it may be the only choice -- but I can't fool myself into believing it won't hurt. The offense without Ramirez and without Pujols or Fielders would suck. And hard.

 

Though I do disagree with USSoccer on one point, if the Cubs don't sign Pujols/Fielder, I see no reason they must to re-sign Ramirez. Because they'd stink regardless. The Cubs just tried that song and dance; the results next year won't be better (likely worse, because Ramirez will likely be worse).

The biggest issue with treating WAR like a strictly summable statistic among players is that there isn't a linear relationship between WAR and value. At the far end of the spectrum at each position, a little increase in WAR is a huge increase in value, just to get on the leading edge of production at a position. If you have a team that can afford 25 above average players, or have an internal development system that is producing 3-5 cost-controlled high-end players, then you're in luck, but at this point, the Cubs have neither of those options for 2012.

 

I was thinking about running statistics on BP's compensation listing against an exponential curve instead of a line, to see just how valuable the top end of the curve is and should be to a team.

[Guest]

Hoyer coming up on Mully and Hanley at 8:20.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Granted, it's also more difficult to find that kind of WAR at 3rd than it is at 1st, but they're practically identical players in terms of overall team value at this point.

 

That sounds like a flaw with WAR

 

No, it just comes back to some people overrating Ramirez.

 

2009-2011

fWAR: 2.2, 0.4, 3.6

bWAR: 1.4, -1.0, 3.6

bpWAR: 2.3, 0.4, 2.4

 

He's a nice offensive player, but he gives some of that value back in every way imaginable: terrible baserunner, terrible defender (at this point in his career, in his prime he was able to hold his own), prone to nagging injuries.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The biggest issue with treating WAR like a strictly summable statistic among players is that there isn't a linear relationship between WAR and value. At the far end of the spectrum at each position, a little increase in WAR is a huge increase in value, just to get on the leading edge of production at a position.

 

That's actually the argument against re-signing Ramirez. He's not at the far end of the spectrum (on either end). He's on the good side of the middle, and I'd we can replace him with players on the worse side of the middle.

 

But there are players at the far positive end of the spectrum available at 1b, and there are players at the far negative end of the spectrum that need to be replaced in the rotation.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

On Epstein compensation:

 

Says MacPhail is the only real precedent, so it shouldn't be that hard to figure out.

[dew1679666265]

So...its better to risk twice as much money over probably 3 or 4 more years on this guy?

 

Scouting reports on Matsuzaka were glowing, too.

 

And Darvish isn't a guarantee to be great, I don't disagree. However, just because a few Japanese pitchers have failed doesn't mean another one will. The difference between Aramis and Darvish is with Darvish you're paying for upside. You're paying more, but you're paying for what he's capable of doing going forward. With Aramis, you're paying him for what he's already done. He's a very, very high injury risk player who also has a good chance to decline going forward after barely being worth what he was paid last year.

 

Aramis is the perfect example of what Theo was talking about in his press conference about not paying for past performance. As much as I like Aramis, there's almost no chance he's worth his next contract at any point.

[dew1679666265]

Yeah, that's the exact same sort of thing we all heard about Matsuzaka. Don't worry about the transition with this Japanese pitcher. He'll be fine; he's different.

 

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying there's reason to believe he might be different, but it's not a certainty. But I think it's a risk worth taking if our only other option is to overpay for a 34 year old, oft-injured third baseman.

 

That said, I've stated many times and will again - I'd rather push very hard for Prince/Pujols and pass on Darvish. But if we miss on Prince/Pujols, the answer is not to bring Aramis back at the price he'll likely demand.

[Banedon]

On Epstein compensation:

 

Says MacPhail is the only real precedent, so it shouldn't be that hard to figure out.

 

Yep.

 

Anything else good in that interview?

[dew1679666265]

On Epstein compensation:

 

Says MacPhail is the only real precedent, so it shouldn't be that hard to figure out.

 

More people need to talk about the MacPhail compensation because that's a perfect comparison to this situation. Anything more than a low-A ball player is a good deal for the Sox and more than they should receive.

[SouthSideRyan]

On Epstein compensation:

 

Says MacPhail is the only real precedent, so it shouldn't be that hard to figure out.

 

More people need to talk about the MacPhail compensation because that's a perfect comparison to this situation. Anything more than a low-A ball player is a good deal for the Sox and more than they should receive.

 

The morons in the media are too busy feeding into the SOSH logic of him CHANGING THE FACE OF THE FRANCHISE to understand much of anything about the process.

[Fro]

While I don't really think the Cubs should sign Ramirez -- I'd very reluctant to sign him to more than two years as I don't think he's going to age well at all -- I am very uncomfortable with the logic that a team can replace a good player with two average-ish players and be little worse for wear. I'm a numbers guy, too, but that seems like computer voodoo that won't actually work in real life; it seems the sort of thing that leads one to never pay actual good players because "eh, we'll just replace them with (insert scrub) and (insert scrub) because they're only worth one less WAR." This is especially true on a team with very few good offensive players.

 

Well, the equation is really Aramis v.s. 2 scrub players + the player(s) you spend his $15 million on

 

You may gain more wins playing 2 scrubs at 3B and signing CJ Wilson versus resigning Aram and having Cashner start.

[Exile on Waveland]

While I don't really think the Cubs should sign Ramirez -- I'd very reluctant to sign him to more than two years as I don't think he's going to age well at all -- I am very uncomfortable with the logic that a team can replace a good player with two average-ish players and be little worse for wear. I'm a numbers guy, too, but that seems like computer voodoo that won't actually work in real life; it seems the sort of thing that leads one to never pay actual good players because "eh, we'll just replace them with (insert scrub) and (insert scrub) because they're only worth one less WAR." This is especially true on a team with very few good offensive players.

 

Well, the equation is really Aramis v.s. 2 scrub players + the player(s) you spend his $15 million on

 

You may gain more wins playing 2 scrubs at 3B and signing CJ Wilson versus resigning Aram and having Cashner start.

 

Yes, I understand that. I explicitly said I'm not really in favor of re-signing Ramirez (therefore at least implying because the money would be more valuably spent elsewhere). What I disagree with, and I believe this was quite clear, is the notion that losing Ramirez won't damage third-base production.

[Guest]

While I don't really think the Cubs should sign Ramirez -- I'd very reluctant to sign him to more than two years as I don't think he's going to age well at all -- I am very uncomfortable with the logic that a team can replace a good player with two average-ish players and be little worse for wear. I'm a numbers guy, too, but that seems like computer voodoo that won't actually work in real life; it seems the sort of thing that leads one to never pay actual good players because "eh, we'll just replace them with (insert scrub) and (insert scrub) because they're only worth one less WAR." This is especially true on a team with very few good offensive players.

 

Well, the equation is really Aramis v.s. 2 scrub players + the player(s) you spend his $15 million on

 

You may gain more wins playing 2 scrubs at 3B and signing CJ Wilson versus resigning Aram and having Cashner start.

 

Yes, I understand that. I explicitly said I'm not really in favor of re-signing Ramirez (therefore at least implying because the money would be more valuably spent elsewhere). What I disagree with, and I believe this was quite clear, is the notion that losing Ramirez won't damage third-base production.

 

I think Kyle is just arguing that the hit is manageable...not that there wouldn't be a hit. He's just saying that the hit isn't as big as most people's perception would say.

[Exile on Waveland]

Yeah, that's the exact same sort of thing we all heard about Matsuzaka. Don't worry about the transition with this Japanese pitcher. He'll be fine; he's different.

 

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying there's reason to believe he might be different, but it's not a certainty. But I think it's a risk worth taking if our only other option is to overpay for a 34 year old, oft-injured third baseman.

 

That said, I've stated many times and will again - I'd rather push very hard for Prince/Pujols and pass on Darvish. But if we miss on Prince/Pujols, the answer is not to bring Aramis back at the price he'll likely demand.

 

I actually agree with all this. I don't trust Ramirez. I don't trust Darvish. If the Cubs are going to spend on one of them, I think I'd rather gamble on the youth and the pitching. However, I think it's a very big gamble and people are being too cavalier about that. I, frankly, wouldn't gamble on either (at the money/years I'm expecting each to receive).

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I think Kyle is just arguing that the hit is manageable...not that there wouldn't be a hit. He's just saying that the hit isn't as big as most people's perception would say.

 

Exactly. Of course there's a dropoff from Ramirez to the Baker Brigade. But there's an opportunity cost to everything. Re-signing Ramirez at the price he'll likely command probably means taking a hit in the rotation or 1b.

 

It's pretty hard to make a case (and I notice no one's tried to make it, other than just vague statements about how hard it is to replace Ramirez) that the hit from Ramirez to internal options is bigger than the hit from a good FA pitcher to Casey Coleman.

[Exile on Waveland]

While I don't really think the Cubs should sign Ramirez -- I'd very reluctant to sign him to more than two years as I don't think he's going to age well at all -- I am very uncomfortable with the logic that a team can replace a good player with two average-ish players and be little worse for wear. I'm a numbers guy, too, but that seems like computer voodoo that won't actually work in real life; it seems the sort of thing that leads one to never pay actual good players because "eh, we'll just replace them with (insert scrub) and (insert scrub) because they're only worth one less WAR." This is especially true on a team with very few good offensive players.

 

Well, the equation is really Aramis v.s. 2 scrub players + the player(s) you spend his $15 million on

 

You may gain more wins playing 2 scrubs at 3B and signing CJ Wilson versus resigning Aram and having Cashner start.

 

Yes, I understand that. I explicitly said I'm not really in favor of re-signing Ramirez (therefore at least implying because the money would be more valuably spent elsewhere). What I disagree with, and I believe this was quite clear, is the notion that losing Ramirez won't damage third-base production.

 

I think Kyle is just arguing that the hit is manageable...not that there wouldn't be a hit. He's just saying that the hit isn't as big as most people's perception would say.

 

I don't doubt he's right that the high might not be as big as perception. However, while I cannot disprove WAR mathematically, I cannot fathom whatever platoon only being worth one or so less wins that Ramirez.*

 

 

*Someone will, I'm sure, say "what if Ramirez tanks?" I'll grant that's possible -- it's the reason I don't want him re-signed for long (I think the tanking is around the corner). I'm just not really sure the chances of that are any greater than the whatever-minor-league-platoon-player tanking. I think the downside is far greater for the latter, making this rather moot.