Hoyer, McLeod officially join Cubs

[17 Seconds]

The difference is that if/when the replacement(s) tank, we won't be paying them 15 mil to do it.

 

I would have given Aramis 2 years max, and I think he'll probably get 4-5 from somebody else.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Take the platoon idea out of it.

 

What's your projected 2012 WAR as a full-time starting 3b from:

 

Aramis Ramirez

Jeff Baker

The best veteran stopgap $2 million can buy.

[Exile on Waveland]

The difference is that if/when the replacement(s) tank, we won't be paying them 15 mil to do it.

 

I would have given Aramis 2 years max, and I think he'll probably get 4-5 from somebody else.

 

I'm not really sure if you're arguing with me or just making another point . . . but, either way, I don't disagree with any of this. I believe signing Ramirez to the deal I expect him to receive would be a very big mistake. I just don't agree, at all, that losing Ramirez will be casually brushed off production-wise. (Again, that doesn't mean it can't be covered up by superior production elsewhere; I expect it can. I just think the internal third-base options are likely to be awful.)

[dew1679666265]

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).

 

I agree with the bolded pretty much completely. The only reason I was arguing in favor of Darvish was because I was arguing that we could have a chance to be competitive without Aramis, even in the worst case scenario where we miss on Pujols/Prince. A Darvish/Wilson tandem would be almost essential at that point because of Darvish's upside.

 

If we're not working under a worst case scenario, however, I'd rather let somebody else take the gamble on Darvish.

[Exile on Waveland]

Take the platoon idea out of it.

 

What's your projected 2012 WAR as a full-time starting 3b from:

 

Aramis Ramirez

Jeff Baker

The best veteran stopgap $2 million can buy.

 

I literally have no idea how to do this. I know that Ramirez was worth 3.6 WAR this year and Baker was worth -0.4 WAR. I'm guessing a veteran stopgap worth $2 million probably isn't netting more than like one WAR.

 

I expect I know where you're going with this; but I'm skeptical of any formula that ends with a proposition that a good player is only worth like 1-1.5 wins over a bad player. Call me a Luddite, if you must, but I don't think I can believe that.

[Guest]

Maybe an explanation on the theory behind WAR would help.

 

 

Something I'm not prepared to provide, BTW.

[bukie]

Take the platoon idea out of it.

 

What's your projected 2012 WAR as a full-time starting 3b from:

 

Aramis Ramirez

Jeff Baker

The best veteran stopgap $2 million can buy.

 

Without putting much time into it,

 

Ramirez: 2.5 WAR

Baker full-time: 0 WAR

Best available $2M stopgap (Betemit/Cairo/Hairston/Chavez): 1.0 WAR

[bukie]

Maybe an explanation on the theory behind WAR would help.

 

 

Something I'm not prepared to provide, BTW.

Maybe a thread on sabermetric theory would be a good resource around here. I don't have the time to get into it too deeply right now, though.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I literally have no idea how to do this. I know that Ramirez was worth 3.6 WAR this year and Baker was worth -0.4 WAR. I'm guessing a veteran stopgap worth $2 million probably isn't netting more than like one WAR.

 

That was in Ramirez's best season in the last three, by far. A reasonable projection has him dropping a bit.

 

So for Ramirez, we're looking at a projection of 2.5 WAR to 3.5 WAR, depending how optimistically you want to project him. (I'm not saying he couldn't have a better season than that, or a worse season, I'm just saying that projecting for 2012, that's pretty much the range you have to come in at).

 

Alternative cheap solutions project from a pessimistic 0 WAR (that's pretty much what replacement level means) to the optimistic 1.5 WAR (if the platoon works reasonably well or you get a good vet).

 

That's pretty much the range we're arguing about here. I see it closer to 1-2 wins (I'm pretty bearish on Ramirez and bullish on internal options), but I could see the argument that it is closer to 3 wins if you were bullish on Ramirez and bearish on the replacements.

 

I don't see how a 3-win downgrade would mean that we are so doomed that we have to put away any thoughts of competing if we whiffed on the elite 1bmen.

[toonsterwu]

Spit-balling another name for 3rd base, but I wonder if the Red Sox will shop Jed Lowrie. He's entering his Arb 1 year, coming off a banged up season which saw Marco Scutaro reclaim the starting job and get his option for 2012 picked up. At some point, Jose Iglesias will likely get a look because of the quality of his glove. For those concerned about Headley's power, or just pessimistic on his ability to develop it once he is away from Petco, Lowrie likely would offer a similar ISOP to what Headley did last year, if not better. He has the solid approach that Theo and Co. want. If healthy, he's probably still a solid middle infielder (although I never liked him at short, more at 2nd), but he can handle 3rd. They have Will Middlebrooks at AA for 3rd, and Pedroia isn't getting moved.

 

Of course, there are some opposing thoughts that come up. Scutaro isn't likely to be brought back after 2012, and Iglesias' bat is still fringy. With 2 more cost-controlled years, they can hold onto him to use as a way to bridge the gap, or as a fallback plan in case Iglesias' bat forces their hand. He's also reportedly one of the few friends Jacoby Ellsbury has on the team after Ellsbury's issues a couple years ago, and with Jacoby as a prime cog there now, they may want to keep him a bit happy. Perhaps the biggest issue are his splits. He can smoke lefties as a righty, but has struggled some as a lefthanded hitter against righties. Thus, he would somewhat replicate what Jeff Baker brings to the table. Furthermore, if you go down this road, it almost seems like you might as well save whatever resources it would take to get him and just let Ryan Flaherty get a shot.

 

But just spit-balling ideas.

[jersey cubs fan]

I don't see how a 3-win downgrade would mean that we are so doomed that we have to put away any thoughts of competing if we whiffed on the elite 1bmen.

 

Seriously? The team is coming in as a complete mess. If you don't get studs and you already lock in another downgrade elsewhere, this team isn't going anywhere. They need, and obviously can afford, major upgrades.

[Exile on Waveland]

Maybe an explanation on the theory behind WAR would help.

 

 

Something I'm not prepared to provide, BTW.

 

I'll admit that it's possible that I'm missing an obvious fundamental point about WAR; I'm not a numbers guru (as far as understanding). I've never claimed omniscience. However, I'm not a neophyte either (I've read Baseball Between the Numbers, The Book, BP/fangraphs, this board for years, etc). That said, I think the way WAR is being used in this thread is so basic that I'm not sure WAR theory would help.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Seriously? The team is coming in as a complete mess.

 

And that's where we disagree. This team is a lot closer to average than it is a complete mess, presuming we clean up the back of the rotation and get a small upgrade in the outfield by replacing Tyler Colvin's playing time with Brett Jackson.

[Exile on Waveland]

I literally have no idea how to do this. I know that Ramirez was worth 3.6 WAR this year and Baker was worth -0.4 WAR. I'm guessing a veteran stopgap worth $2 million probably isn't netting more than like one WAR.

 

That was in Ramirez's best season in the last three, by far. A reasonable projection has him dropping a bit.

 

So for Ramirez, we're looking at a projection of 2.5 WAR to 3.5 WAR, depending how optimistically you want to project him. (I'm not saying he couldn't have a better season than that, or a worse season, I'm just saying that projecting for 2012, that's pretty much the range you have to come in at).

 

Alternative cheap solutions project from a pessimistic 0 WAR (that's pretty much what replacement level means) to the optimistic 1.5 WAR (if the platoon works reasonably well or you get a good vet).

 

That's pretty much the range we're arguing about here. I see it closer to 1-2 wins (I'm pretty bearish on Ramirez and bullish on internal options), but I could see the argument that it is closer to 3 wins if you were bullish on Ramirez and bearish on the replacements.

 

I don't see how a 3-win downgrade would mean that we are so doomed that we have to put away any thoughts of competing if we whiffed on the elite 1bmen.

 

I think it's far more likely to be a three-win downgrade. I would expect the platoon to be a disaster. Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me to see the minor leaguer struggle so much that whatever manager ends up giving Baker most all the at-bats, which would be awful against righties.

 

I don't see how a three-win downgrade isn't likely to spell doom. The Cubs won 71 games last year. Their expected wins was actually worse, at 69. Using your WAR predictions, even if the Cubs sign Pujols/Fielder, that's only (what?) a three or four-win upgrade over Pena (I think that number is too low, but whatever). Using WAR, I don't see how you can start with 71, subtract three, and realistically end with anything but a bad team.

[jersey cubs fan]

Seriously? The team is coming in as a complete mess.

 

And that's where we disagree. This team is a lot closer to average than it is a complete mess, presuming we clean up the back of the rotation and get a small upgrade in the outfield by replacing Tyler Colvin's playing time with Brett Jackson.

 

I don't know what you want to call the area between complete mess and almost average, but it's not good. And that's where the Cubs are without Ramirez or replacement studs.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I don't know what you want to call the area between complete mess and almost average, but it's not good. And that's where the Cubs are without Ramirez or replacement studs.

 

If you are very lucky, you call it 1998.

[jersey cubs fan]

I don't see how a three-win downgrade isn't likely to spell doom. The Cubs won 71 games last year. Their expected wins was actually worse, at 69. Using your WAR predictions, even if the Cubs sign Pujols/Fielder, that's only (what?) a three or four-win upgrade over Pena (I think that number is too low, but whatever). Using WAR, I don't see how you can start with 71, subtract three, and realistically end with anything but a bad team.

 

You probably shouldn't start with 71 as the base case. But the point remains, replacing Ramirez with platoon players who were already counted on to contribute to the team with Ramirez while also failing to add some impact elsewhere is a recipe for another horrible season in 2012.

[jersey cubs fan]

I don't know what you want to call the area between complete mess and almost average, but it's not good. And that's where the Cubs are without Ramirez or replacement studs.

 

If you are very lucky, you call it 1998.

 

1998 without Sosa

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I don't see how a three-win downgrade isn't likely to spell doom. The Cubs won 71 games last year. Their expected wins was actually worse, at 69. Using your WAR predictions, even if the Cubs sign Pujols/Fielder, that's only (what?) a three or four-win upgrade over Pena (I think that number is too low, but whatever). Using WAR, I don't see how you can start with 71, subtract three, and realistically end with anything but a bad team.

 

The Cubs last year got replacement-level production out of RF, No. 4 starter and No. 5 starter. They also had several other starting pitchers exhibit quite a bit of poor luck.

 

There's 8-12 wins to be had fairly easily by fixing each of those things. After that, it gets a bit harder to upgrade without signing a major upgrade, but there's still a lot of fairly easy wins to be cherrypicked.

[jersey cubs fan]

I don't see how a three-win downgrade isn't likely to spell doom. The Cubs won 71 games last year. Their expected wins was actually worse, at 69. Using your WAR predictions, even if the Cubs sign Pujols/Fielder, that's only (what?) a three or four-win upgrade over Pena (I think that number is too low, but whatever). Using WAR, I don't see how you can start with 71, subtract three, and realistically end with anything but a bad team.

 

The Cubs last year got replacement-level production out of RF, No. 4 starter and No. 5 starter. They also had several other starting pitchers exhibit quite a bit of poor luck.

 

There's 8-12 wins to be had fairly easily by fixing each of those things. After that, it gets a bit harder to upgrade without signing a major upgrade, but there's still a lot of fairly easy wins to be cherrypicked.

 

 

And all of your fixes are completely vague assumptions (plus hoping for luck).

[Hairyducked Idiot]

And all of your fixes are completely vague assumptions (plus hoping for luck).

 

Presuming the removal of bad luck is not the same as hoping for luck.

 

You've got a nice racket going. You get to make vague statements of doom and dodge any attempt to be pinned down to specifics. Then when someone disagrees, you either nitpick the specifics or accuse them of not providing any.

 

Okay, this time with specifics for you to pick at:

 

The Cubs got 0.8 WAR out of 72 starts (roughly two rotation spots) from the parade of awful replacement pitchers last year and the injured Randy Wells.

 

They got 0.3 WAR out of RF.

 

Matt Garza gave up 0.8 WAR worth of runs more than his FIP would predict. Ryan Dempster gave up 2.0 WAR more. (Obviously, defense was a part of that, but this is where we'll include the assumption that the Cubs have a better defense in 2012, which I think is reasonable).

 

If the Cubs spend $30 million on pitching to fill those two rotation spots at the prevailing price of about $4 million per WAR, they get an upgrade of 6.7 WAR.

 

If Matt Garza and Ryan Dempster get back to their predictive FIP rather than their descriptive ERA, then you get another 2.8 WAR back.

 

That's 9.5 wins of upgrade without touching 1b.

[jersey cubs fan]

Kyle, I really don't think you know what you are talking about when discussing WAR.

[davearm2]

Let's just say we spend the remaining $40 million on Wilson and someone middling like Oswalt.

 

If we take Aramis Ramirez's mother's projections for his 2012 and assume that the Baker Brigade is replacement level, then you are still left with no more than a 4-win gap. A realistic projection is more like a 1-2 WAR gap.

 

Assuming Pena drops back a little and Pujols recovers to his 2010 numbers, that'a 5-win gap. From Fielder to Pena is about 3.5.

 

Using 2011 WAR (extrapolating to a full season for Oswalt), you get 5.8 WAR for replacing the fifth-starter horrors with CJ Wilson, and you get 3 wins for replacing Wells with Oswalt.

 

There are many paths by which the Cubs' remaining $40 million can improve the team significantly. It's absurd to simultaneously argue that the Cubs are terrible and that there's only two ways that $40 million worth of players can improve them.

I think it's interesting that Oswalt's name shows up in this conversation.

 

If Ramirez had played his career in, say, Detroit and Seattle, folks here would be about as interested in signing him as they are in signing Oswalt. The two are about as similar as a hitter and a pitcher can be... the age, the WAR figures, the injury concern, the pricetag etc.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Kyle, I really don't think you know what you are talking about when discussing WAR.

 

Ooh, that's a new tactic. We can add "general accusations of ignorance" to the playbook. Anything to avoid having to back up your own assertions.

 

WAR is nothing more than a currency to describe value in this discussion. You could use runs or outs or dollars or whatever, but wins is a logical one.

[Guest]

Here's the simplest way I can put things with Ramirez.

 

Unless the Cubs raise the payroll to 140-150 million, it's going to take some creative(or unlikely) circumstances for the team to be competitive in 2012.

 

Ramirez only has real value to the team for the next year or two.

 

Therefore, you should only bring back Ramirez if you fit him into those already narrow parameters. Considering he's already turned down 1/16 and he's by far the best(and maybe the only) starting 3B on the market, I don't think it's at all likely he can fit in those parameters.

 

Now if in a week Theoyer manages to trade all of Z's contract for Logan Morrison and then pays half of Soriano's contract to go somewhere else, then let's bring back Aramis. But as much as I want to be competitive next year, I want the pieces acquired this offseason to be solutions for the next 3+ years. And that means that guys like Aramis, Oswalt, Buehrle, Beltran, etc. need to be a final piece that happens to fit in financially, not a linchpin of the offseason that we lament if they can't be acquired.