Constructing the 2012 Cubs

[Hairyducked Idiot]

A lot of their draft advantage has been neutralized by the new CBA

 

No, it hasn't. The Red Sox did enjoy using overslots profusely, but that's not the only reason they drafted so well.

[jersey cubs fan]

Even though the CBA was certainly a setback, it was a setback for every other team as well,

 

No it wasn't. It was a setback to teams that are willing to spend more in the draft. The Cubs were one of a few organizations in that position.

[CubColtPacer]

Even though the CBA was certainly a setback, it was a setback for every other team as well,

 

No it wasn't. It was a setback to teams that are willing to spend more in the draft. The Cubs were one of a few organizations in that position.

 

Everybody has enough cash to spend bigtime in the draft, and more and more teams were doing it. 10 teams broke the 10 million mark last year. And the market sizes of those teams were all over the board. The CBA helped the teams who hadn't caught on yet and it's a significant problem for the Cubs in the short-term, but the trend was showing that it wasn't going to be an area of advantage for any team for too long.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

They are accumulating a lot of prospect inventory, but you have to allow some time for the prospects to prove their worth before you can trade them for something of value. My other concern that this is going to take 5-6 years instead of 2-3. I'm excited about having "the smartest kid in class" running things, but some of the euphoria around here seems to think that all the other GMs are going to stay out of sight while Theo drafts the best players, signs the best FAs, and makes all one-sided trades for available superstars.

 

 

You've repeatedly downplayed the savvy moves they've made because the players are "question marks." If you don't get why Wood, Maholm and Volstad represent a rather significant upgrade over last year's rotation, then I can see why you would be missing out on the euphoria.

[jersey cubs fan]

Even though the CBA was certainly a setback, it was a setback for every other team as well,

 

No it wasn't. It was a setback to teams that are willing to spend more in the draft. The Cubs were one of a few organizations in that position.

 

Everybody has enough cash to spend bigtime in the draft, and more and more teams were doing it. 10 teams broke the 10 million mark last year. And the market sizes of those teams were all over the board.

 

Everybody has enough cash, but not a willingness to spend that cash. The CBA was only a setback to those teams willing to go above the norm. It wasn't a setback to all big market teams, just the ones who were willing to spend more than the rest, which is, by definition, a lot fewer organizations than every one of them.

[KingCubsFan]

Even though the CBA was certainly a setback, it was a setback for every other team as well,

 

No it wasn't. It was a setback to teams that are willing to spend more in the draft. The Cubs were one of a few organizations in that position.

It impacts some more than others based on current strategies, sure. We view it as particularly detrimental to the Cubs because we finally had a management team and ownership that wanted to focus on pouring more money into the draft. But it still impacts every team, and it definitely impacts teams like the Rays, Pirates and Royals more than us, because they can't fall back on building a huge scouting base as opposed to collecting as many picks as possible.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Everybody has enough cash, but not a willingness to spend that cash. The CBA was only a setback to those teams willing to go above the norm. It wasn't a setback to all big market teams, just the ones who were willing to spend more than the rest, which is, by definition, a lot fewer organizations than every one of them.

 

It wasn't just, or even primarily, big-market teams that were spending big in the draft. The Pirates were one of the top spenders in recent years.

 

About a dozen teams who were overslotting lose out on the new CBA, but they lose an advantage that was already shrinking as more teams joined the party. The Cubs were very late to that market inefficiency. There will be others.

[jersey cubs fan]

Even though the CBA was certainly a setback, it was a setback for every other team as well,

 

No it wasn't. It was a setback to teams that are willing to spend more in the draft. The Cubs were one of a few organizations in that position.

It impacts some more than others based on current strategies, sure. We view it as particularly detrimental to the Cubs because we finally had a management team and ownership that wanted to focus on pouring more money into the draft. But it still impacts every team, and it definitely impacts teams like the Rays, Pirates and Royals more than us, because they can't fall back on building a huge scouting base as opposed to collecting as many picks as possible.

 

How the hell can it be a setback to teams that had no interest in overspending in the first place?

[davell]

We hopped on the "spend big on the draft" bandwagon way too late. But, there were plenty of teams already on it, with more probably joining each draft. That said, I believe we'll still have some teams spending less than others< even now. Plus, it's how each team views the CBA and finds loopholes, that's going to have advantages. I see no one out there better equipped than us to do that either.

 

As for B2B's statement about waiting on prospects to establish themselves before they have value? Why? Prospects are the best currency a team has. Gio Gonzalez was dealt for a group of guys that have never played in the majors before. Same with quite a few others. Prospects certainly have value and 1) you want to trade them before they hit the majors, in case they don't pan out and 2) you don't trade someone who's already panned out in the majors anyway. Not if they look like they're going to be very good. Some teams, the Blue Jays, Padres, Rangers, Rays, maybe one or two more, can go trade for anyone they wanted to RIGHT NOW, because they have the systems to do it. That's what Theo wants and that's what I think we'll have by the end of this season.

[davearm2]

I understand the upbeat mood by letting the kids play, but I really don't understand any optimism about the 2012 team being "not that bad". The offense is absolutely horrible unless Lahair and Stewart show something. The depth of the rotation is much better, but without Garza or Dempster (trade or injury) it would be really shaky. The defense is probably a wash with an upgrade at 3B, but a downgrade at 1B. As I've posted before, my concern is that many of the future FAs that we're counting on either won't make it to free agency or will be signed by this year's big market non-participants (Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox, etc.).

I wouldn't worry too much. I think Theo and co. are setting themselves up to acquire their superstars via trade, a la Adrian Gonzalez. They're accumulating quite a bit of prospect inventory.

 

I wonder if Theo's man crush on King Felix will ever materialize into anything for us.

They'll have to acquire a lot better "inventory" then they are currently collecting for that to happen. I'm not exactly sure how they will acquire the inventory either.

I don't agree with that. Right about now, Felix Hernandez's salary is catching up to his value. He's got 3 years and ~$60M left on his deal. As good as he is, that still limits his trade value.

 

Perhaps the Cubs would be out of the running if he was still being paid less than $10M.

[KingCubsFan]

Even though the CBA was certainly a setback, it was a setback for every other team as well,

 

No it wasn't. It was a setback to teams that are willing to spend more in the draft. The Cubs were one of a few organizations in that position.

It impacts some more than others based on current strategies, sure. We view it as particularly detrimental to the Cubs because we finally had a management team and ownership that wanted to focus on pouring more money into the draft. But it still impacts every team, and it definitely impacts teams like the Rays, Pirates and Royals more than us, because they can't fall back on building a huge scouting base as opposed to collecting as many picks as possible.

 

How the hell can it be a setback to teams that had no interest in overspending in the first place?

If the White Sox fired Kenny Williams today and replaced him with Dan Evans or someone else who actually wants to focus on building through the draft, the new CBA immediately presents a problem for them, just like it did for the Cubs. My whole point is that, while this alters the short-term strategy for the Cubs, it ultimately affects the decisionmaking for all teams, whether they are choosing to utilize overspending right now or not. And as someone else mentioned, numerous teams were picking up on this practice anyways (including the Cubs). In the end, the CBA probably works in our favor, but it's going to take a bit longer to develop a pipeline through the draft.

[Backtobanks]

They are accumulating a lot of prospect inventory, but you have to allow some time for the prospects to prove their worth before you can trade them for something of value. My other concern that this is going to take 5-6 years instead of 2-3. I'm excited about having "the smartest kid in class" running things, but some of the euphoria around here seems to think that all the other GMs are going to stay out of sight while Theo drafts the best players, signs the best FAs, and makes all one-sided trades for available superstars.

 

 

You've repeatedly downplayed the savvy moves they've made because the players are "question marks." If you don't get why Wood, Maholm and Volstad represent a rather significant upgrade over last year's rotation, then I can see why you would be missing out on the euphoria.

 

You are using hindsight to compare this year's BOR to the results from last year. At this time last year the BOR was Zambrano, Cashner, and Wells. Obviously we didn't know the problems and injuries that would occur, but the expectation level of last year's BOR certainly would match this year's.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Well, yes I'm using hindsight to evaluate what happened. What else would you use to project whether this year's Cubs will be as good or better than last?

 

I guess we could compare this year's Cubs with how last year's Cubs projected at the same time last year. That'd be an interesting, but different, discussion.

[Backtobanks]

Well, yes I'm using hindsight to evaluate what happened. What else would you use to project whether this year's Cubs will be as good or better than last?

 

I guess we could compare this year's Cubs with how last year's Cubs projected at the same time last year. That'd be an interesting, but different, discussion.

 

That's exactly my point. The Cubs of last year were projected to be much better than they actually were. Injuries played a major part, but down seasons by some players also contributed to the terrible season. My posts have emphasized that it was Hendry's job to put together the best team on paper, but he couldn't always be faulted for the injuries or bad seasons that certain players had. There were many years that the Cubs were considered contenders "on paper", but they underperformed. Likewise, Theo's job is to rebuild at this point by getting the best prospects possible, but there's no guarantee that they will perform as hoped or expected. Combining the track record and expectation level of last year's BOR before the season would certainly be greater than this year's BOR track record and expectation level, but things don't always go as planned.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Okay, so your point was that sometimes there's variance in baseball.

 

Kind of a pointless point, but noted.

[davell]

Going into last year, I thought the Cubs were a mid 70's win team. And had very little upside, to boot. So yes, this year's squad isn't necessarily any better, on paper, than last year. But the upside and the flexibility, is world's different. In a great way. As far as Hendry's teams underperforming? Other than 2004, not once have I gone into a season thinking we were a legit threat, other than the year's we made the playoffs. 2005, 2006, 2009, 2010, and 2011 all turned out fairly close to what we should have expected.

[Backtobanks]

We hopped on the "spend big on the draft" bandwagon way too late. But, there were plenty of teams already on it, with more probably joining each draft. That said, I believe we'll still have some teams spending less than others< even now. Plus, it's how each team views the CBA and finds loopholes, that's going to have advantages. I see no one out there better equipped than us to do that either.

 

As for B2B's statement about waiting on prospects to establish themselves before they have value? Why? Prospects are the best currency a team has. Gio Gonzalez was dealt for a group of guys that have never played in the majors before. Same with quite a few others. Prospects certainly have value and 1) you want to trade them before they hit the majors, in case they don't pan out and 2) you don't trade someone who's already panned out in the majors anyway. Not if they look like they're going to be very good. Some teams, the Blue Jays, Padres, Rangers, Rays, maybe one or two more, can go trade for anyone they wanted to RIGHT NOW, because they have the systems to do it. That's what Theo wants and that's what I think we'll have by the end of this season.

 

I never said that the prospects have to be in the majors to establish their value. Prospects that show promise in A ball would have a lot more value if they were successful in AA or AAA.

[seanimal]

tell me more

[davearm2]

Well, yes I'm using hindsight to evaluate what happened. What else would you use to project whether this year's Cubs will be as good or better than last?

 

I guess we could compare this year's Cubs with how last year's Cubs projected at the same time last year. That'd be an interesting, but different, discussion.

On paper, Maholm Wood and Volstad project to be better than last year's BOR.

 

On paper, Zambrano Cashner and Wells project to be better than last year's BOR.

 

Ergo, using hindsight isn't particularly useful, unless you have some reason to believe that the current group is immune from the factors that caused the last group to underachieve expectations.

[SouthSideRyan]

This isn't that difficult. We don't need to improve on the '11 projections for the BOR in order to be better. We know what they actually did, that's what we're improving on.

[davearm2]

This isn't that difficult. We don't need to improve on the '11 projections for the BOR in order to be better. We know what they actually did, that's what we're improving on.

The point is, the same players would be an improvement, so long as they didn't underperform again.

 

On paper, they haven't really gotten better.

[Guest]

This isn't that difficult. We don't need to improve on the '11 projections for the BOR in order to be better. We know what they actually did, that's what we're improving on.

The point is, the same players would be an improvement, so long as they didn't underperform again.

 

On paper, they haven't really gotten better.

You mean they haven't really gotten better than the projections...which were better than the actual performance.

 

So they've improved from the actual performance of last year.

[Bull]

This isn't that difficult. We don't need to improve on the '11 projections for the BOR in order to be better. We know what they actually did, that's what we're improving on.

The point is, the same players would be an improvement, so long as they didn't underperform again.

 

On paper, they haven't really gotten better.

You mean they haven't really gotten better than the projections...which were better than the actual performance.

 

So they've improved from the actual performance of last year.

 

they project to be improved from the actual performance. :)

 

And they kind of are immune to the injuries to the back of the rotation. That's the whole point of going 7 deep.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

So as compared with one year ago, we project to about the same number of wins. Meanwhile, we're $25 million cheaper, have more upside, many more players under long-term team control, fewer future years on bad contracts, and a better minor league system.

[davell]

So as compared with one year ago, we project to about the same number of wins. Meanwhile, we're $25 million cheaper, have more upside, many more players under long-term team control, fewer future years on bad contracts, and a better minor league system.

Winner.