Re: What would you deal Garza for?

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

So 29 with minimal injury history is more risky than similarly late 20's with plenty of injury history and surgery?

 

Just don't buy it....29's not even old for a pitcher...especially one in Hamels' class.

[dew1679666265]

So 29 with minimal injury history is more risky than similarly late 20's with plenty of injury history and surgery?

 

Just don't buy it....29's not even old for a pitcher...especially one in Hamels' class.

 

When the cost difference between them could be two years and upward of $30 million in total value? Yes, the risk is greater with the far more expensive pitcher. Basically, if we're going to invest a bunch of money into a pitcher, I'd rather keep the contract length under 6 years. I think we can do that with Anibal, I seriously doubt we can with Hamels. That we can get Anibal much cheaper is simply a bonus. And 29 isn't real old, but it's a lot older than it is for a hitter and especially so when the 29 year old pitcher has more than 1,200 innings on his arm.

 

If we had a major need for an elite starter, I might think differently. But I don't think the gamble is worth taking when the need isn't strong.

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

Wait now they don't have a need for an elite SP? One is enough? The Cubs can use an elite anything.

 

All around disagree..Hamels is EXACTLY the type of pitcher I'd be as comfortable as possible with giving a 6 year deal to. I don't get how you're projecting injury for him when you don't have to project to call Sanchez an injury risk. It's not like a surgically repaired arm gets stronger as you use it more and get older...Sanchez suffered some pretty serious injuries that early on left his career in jeopardy.

 

Also we're in the day and age where great pitchers are THRIVING in their 30's...Big meh on Hamels being 29, particularly when Sanchez isn't much younger (if he is, not in front of me) and has a significantly worse injury history.

Edited May 7, 2012 by PriortoTheoIhadWood

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

Big double post. Edited May 7, 2012 by PriortoTheoIhadWood

[Sammy Sofa]

Anibal Sanchez is 28.

[dew1679666265]

Wait now they don't have a need for an elite SP? One is enough? The Cubs can use an elite anything.

 

All around disagree..Hamels is EXACTLY the type of pitcher I'd be as comfortable as possible with giving a 6 year deal to. I don't get how you're projecting injury for him when you don't have to project to call Sanchez an injury risk. It's not like a surgically repaired arm gets stronger as you use it more and get older...Sanchez suffered some pretty serious injuries that early in his career left it in question if he'd even make it.

 

Also we're in the day and age where great pitchers are THRIVING in their 30's...Big meh on Hamels being 29, particularly when Sanchez isn't much younger (if he is, not in front of me) and has a significantly worse injury history.

 

We could use more than 1 elite starting pitcher, sure. But the need isn't nearly as pressing as it was to add an impact bat this past offseason. I'm not necessarily opposed to adding Hamels, I simply don't really want a pitcher making $20+ million per year into his mid-30s. There's immense risk involved there.

 

And Sanchez is a very risky signing as well, but in signing him we'd (in my scenario) be locking him in until he's between 32-33 and we'd be paying him something in the area of $30+ million less in total value. If Sanchez breaks down, it hurts us far less than if Hamels breaks down. Add in that Sanchez has been somewhat comparable to Hamels the past couple of years (8.6 fWAR for Hamels vs 8.2 fWAR for Anibal) and I think Anibal is the lesser risk with still plenty of upside to take advantage of.

[dew1679666265]

Anibal Sanchez is 28.

 

Anibal is a few months younger than Hamels, but both will be 28 all year this year and 29 all year next year. So their ages are very similar, but the contract years difference added to the total value difference likely will be rather large.

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

Anibal Sanchez is 28.

 

Anibal is a few months younger than Hamels, but both will be 28 all year this year and 29 all year next year. So their ages are very similar, but the contract years difference added to the total value difference likely will be rather large.

 

Rather large also describes the difference in injury history.

 

Not to mention that I can't name the last time a pitcher got underpaid in FA, AND the Marlins might just keep Sanchez since they don't have two other aces making big money.

[KingCubsFan]

 

We could use more than 1 elite starting pitcher, sure. But the need isn't nearly as pressing as it was to add an impact bat this past offseason.

Disagree. The "strength" of our farm system right now is bats. By next year, we should have three major young offensive pieces under team control for a long time. Pitching-wise, we have nothing in the upper minors. Our best pitching prospect is looking more and more like a reliever. And if this year's team has showed us anything, it's that good starting pitching 1-5 can keep a bad team competitive in most games.

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

We could use more than 1 elite starting pitcher, sure. But the need isn't nearly as pressing as it was to add an impact bat this past offseason. I'm not necessarily opposed to adding Hamels, I simply don't really want a pitcher making $20+ million per year into his mid-30s. There's immense risk involved there.

 

And Sanchez is a very risky signing as well, but in signing him we'd (in my scenario) be locking him in until he's between 32-33 and we'd be paying him something in the area of $30+ million less in total value. If Sanchez breaks down, it hurts us far less than if Hamels breaks down. Add in that Sanchez has been somewhat comparable to Hamels the past couple of years (8.6 fWAR for Hamels vs 8.2 fWAR for Anibal) and I think Anibal is the lesser risk with still plenty of upside to take advantage of.

 

Of course they need a big bat. Like I said, they need an elite anything. How many slit bats are available? Would Hamels REALLY stop them from pursuing BJ Upton or a trade?

 

To me it just sounds like you're pinching pennies here. Sanchez would fit right in during the Hendry/Trib era as a second tier starter with significant injuries and surgeries in his past who saves a few bucks for that rainy day that never came, but right now the Cubs should be focused on elite and healthy. If they go after someone with a formerly wrecked shoulder I hope it's Upton and not a pitcher. Its begging for trouble....

 

The small difference in Fangraphs WAR does not overcome:

 

1 - Injury history.

2 - Hamels leading a WS staff while Sanchez plays #2-3 on the Marlins

3 - Being a short RH without spectacular velocity

4 - Never thrown 200 innings

5 - He's not even a groundball guy so can't even point to that

 

I think just doing a quick glance that the ONLY statistical advantage Sanchez offers is price. Which you know......sounds like pinching pennies.

[dew1679666265]

Rather large also describes the difference in injury history.

 

Not to mention that I can't name the last time a pitcher got underpaid in FA, AND the Marlins might just keep Sanchez since they don't have two other aces making big money.

 

Sanchez doesn't need to be underpaid to be much less expensive than Hamels. He doesn't have the extended track record that Hamels has and his injury history, while concerning, will also keep his price and years down some. It wouldn't surprise me if Anibal's high-end price would be something like 5/100 while Hamels' low-end price would be something like 6/120.

[dew1679666265]

 

We could use more than 1 elite starting pitcher, sure. But the need isn't nearly as pressing as it was to add an impact bat this past offseason.

Disagree. The "strength" of our farm system right now is bats. By next year, we should have three major young offensive pieces under team control for a long time. Pitching-wise, we have nothing in the upper minors. Our best pitching prospect is looking more and more like a reliever. And if this year's team has showed us anything, it's that good starting pitching 1-5 can keep a bad team competitive in most games.

 

We have Garza as an elite arm in the rotation, Shark has shown signs of hitting the mid-top of the rotation arm potential he had, and Volstad and Wood can be decent mid-bottom of the rotation guys. The strength of our farm is our bats, but the strength of our major league roster is our pitching and most of it is fairly young.

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

 

We could use more than 1 elite starting pitcher, sure. But the need isn't nearly as pressing as it was to add an impact bat this past offseason.

Disagree. The "strength" of our farm system right now is bats. By next year, we should have three major young offensive pieces under team control for a long time. Pitching-wise, we have nothing in the upper minors. Our best pitching prospect is looking more and more like a reliever. And if this year's team has showed us anything, it's that good starting pitching 1-5 can keep a bad team competitive in most games.

 

We have Garza as an elite arm in the rotation, Shark has shown signs of hitting the mid-top of the rotation arm potential he had, and Volstad and Wood can be decent mid-bottom of the rotation guys. The strength of our farm is our bats, but the strength of our major league roster is our pitching and most of it is fairly young.

 

Wow you're really reaching here...Volstad? Even Wood is topping out as a 4-5...

 

Cubs should be able to add Jackson, Rizzo, Castillo, and POSSIBLY even Vitters from the system. The rotation will get Travis Wood... There's a HUGE disparity there.

 

 

If Shark is real then they'll still need one more stud, and that guy is not in the system right now. Hamels fits like a glove here to pair with Garza at the top.

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

Rather large also describes the difference in injury history.

 

Not to mention that I can't name the last time a pitcher got underpaid in FA, AND the Marlins might just keep Sanchez since they don't have two other aces making big money.

 

Sanchez doesn't need to be underpaid to be much less expensive than Hamels. He doesn't have the extended track record that Hamels has and his injury history, while concerning, will also keep his price and years down some. It wouldn't surprise me if Anibal's high-end price would be something like 5/100 while Hamels' low-end price would be something like 6/120.

 

Holy...You think it's a GOOD idea to give Anibal Sanchez 5/100 when a significantly better buy is out there for another 1/20?

 

That leaves me floored. You could knock 30 off of that and I'd STILL be extremely leery. The FO should be way too smart to do that....Btw how are you not pinching pennies here? Cheaper is the ONLY bonus.

[dew1679666265]

Of course they need a big bat. Like I said, they need an elite anything. How many slit bats are available? Would Hamels REALLY stop them from pursuing BJ Upton or a trade?

 

I don't know. I didn't think not getting Cespedes for the perfect contract would stop them from pursuing him, but it did. Maybe finances really are as tight as some think.

 

To me it just sounds like you're pinching pennies here. Sanchez would fit right in during the Hendry/Trib era as a second tier starter with significant injuries and surgeries in his past who saves a few bucks for that rainy day that never came, but right now the Cubs should be focused on elite and healthy. If they go after someone with a formerly wrecked shoulder I hope it's Upton and not a pitcher. Its begging for trouble....

 

The small difference in Fangraphs WAR does not overcome:

 

1 - Injury history.

2 - Hamels leading a WS staff while Sanchez plays #2-3 on the Marlins

3 - Being a short RH without spectacular velocity

4 - Never thrown 200 innings

5 - He's not even a groundball guy so can't even point to that

 

I think just doing a quick glance that the ONLY statistical advantage Sanchez offers is price. Which you know......sounds like pinching pennies.

 

Again, yes, Hamels is the better pitcher. But recent stats indicate the difference isn't that significant and if we can have him at a much cheaper price and for 1-2 fewer years, then it makes sense to look into that.

 

As for your points:

1. Yes, the injury history is there, but we're only locked in for 4 years, 5 tops as opposed to 6 and maybe 7 for Hamels. That helps mitigate that risk.

2. Not sure how this matters, other than Hamels was on a better team than Sanchez.

3. Not ideal, I agree, but he's put up very good numbers the past couple of years despite that.

4. He came within 5 and 4 innings the past two years. It's a concern, yes, but it's another reason why we're not locking him into a 6-7 year contract like we would Hamels.

5. Anibal gets groundballs 44% of the time, Hamels gets groundballs 43% of the time. They each struck out more than 9 batters per 9 innings last year and Anibal was less than a K/9 away from Hamels two years ago. The biggest difference between the two is BB/9, which Hamels does have a pretty big advantage in.

[dew1679666265]

Holy...You think it's a GOOD idea to give Anibal Sanchez 5/100 when a significantly better buy is out there for another 1/20?

 

That leaves me floored. You could knock 30 off of that and I'd STILL be extremely leery. The FO should be way too smart to do that....Btw how are you not pinching pennies here? Cheaper is the ONLY bonus.

 

I didn't say I'd go 5/100 for Anibal, I said that was the highest I saw his price going. I'd probably stop at something like 4/80 or 5/90 for him (if that). And that was the lowest price I could see Hamels going for. I think he'll end up at something like 6/138 or so. Possibly more if the Yankees, Red Sox, or Dodgers feel like they really need him.

 

If the difference is 1-2 years and 40-50 million, I'd rather have Anibal. If I'm way off on projected prices, I might reconsider Hamels. And again, it's cheaper and fewer years that interests me about Anibal. I don't want to commit to a pitcher through his age 34-35 seasons at the price point Hamels is likely to receive.

[dew1679666265]

Wow you're really reaching here...Volstad? Even Wood is topping out as a 4-5...

 

Cubs should be able to add Jackson, Rizzo, Castillo, and POSSIBLY even Vitters from the system. The rotation will get Travis Wood... There's a HUGE disparity there.

 

I'm a big Vitters fan and I think you're reaching with him and really reaching with Castillo. The offense will add Jackson and Rizzo to Starlin, that's about it for the immediate future. The offense has pretty much been putrid while the pitching has been solid. The offense needs a bunch of help, the pitching doesn't.

 

If Shark is real then they'll still need one more stud, and that guy is not in the system right now. Hamels fits like a glove here to pair with Garza at the top.

 

Anibal would fit very well into that as well. Especially since we'd be overpaying much less for Anibal than for Hamels in both years and dollars.

[sneakypower]

Sanchez doesn't need to be underpaid to be much less expensive than Hamels. He doesn't have the extended track record that Hamels has and his injury history, while concerning, will also keep his price and years down some. It wouldn't surprise me if Anibal's high-end price would be something like 5/100 while Hamels' low-end price would be something like 6/120.

i really believe there's going to be a huge difference in contracts, which makes Anibal more appealing; you can probably fit him and BJ Upton into your budget for close to what it'll take to sign Hamels

 

if teams really do go crazy for Anibal though, i'd be more than happy picking up Edwin Jackson; he'll probably be bargain basement again, and you can conceivably fit he, Upton, S. Drew all in for the price of just Hamels

 

fWAR since 2009:

 

C. Hamels: 13.6

M. Cain: 13.2

E. Jackson: 12.0 (19th-best)

J. Shields: 11.1

M. Garza: 10.8

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

 

I don't know. I didn't think not getting Cespedes for the perfect contract would stop them from pursuing him, but it did. Maybe finances really are as tight as some think.

 

So you ARE managing their money for them here based on one offseason where they we're clearly purging the roster as best they could...Good to see you can finally admit that, as indirect/passive as that was.

 

Again, yes, Hamels is the better pitcher. But recent stats indicate the difference isn't that significant and if we can have him at a much cheaper price and for 1-2 fewer years, then it makes sense to look into that.

 

Significantly better pitcher...Your lesser price was 100 million. 100 million. To a guy with multiple arm surgeries who isn't even all that much younger than this super risk that is Hamels to you. Your argument for Sanchez just doesn't make sense.

 

As far as the points:

 

1) You really are just glossing over the injury history of a guy who's had MULTIPLE shoulder issues. That's 4-5 years of owning a MAJOR injury risk.

 

2) Perigree. Hamels destroys him there, and he's a MAJOR reason why the Phillies were better. Sanchez = role player. Hamels = star, is the point.

 

3) Good for him. Not the first guy to have a nice couple of years. Doesn't mean you hand him 100 million, which you actually suggested.

 

4) More spin? It's a guy with multiple shoulder and arm injuries in his past who even AT HIS HEALTHIEST didn't top 200 innings. What about this guy doesn't SCREAM risk/bad signing coming?

 

5) On top of it Hamels is the better strikeout pitcher throughout their respective histories....Which bodes very well for his future. You realize how big a deal it is that a lefty is putting up his kind of K rates?

 

Sanchez is a nice pitcher who should get a ton of respect for what he's done for himself. That said, someone else can pay him he FA price. I want to be elite, and that requires signing better than second tier pitching with significant injury history.

 

Can you name the elite bat available I should set my eyes on in place of the elite pitcher? I still insist that the only shoulder problem guy to pursue is Upton, no contest.

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

Sanchez doesn't need to be underpaid to be much less expensive than Hamels. He doesn't have the extended track record that Hamels has and his injury history, while concerning, will also keep his price and years down some. It wouldn't surprise me if Anibal's high-end price would be something like 5/100 while Hamels' low-end price would be something like 6/120.

i really believe there's going to be a huge difference in contracts, which makes Anibal more appealing; you can probably fit him and BJ Upton into your budget for close to what it'll take to sign Hamels

 

if teams really do go crazy for Anibal though, i'd be more than happy picking up Edwin Jackson; he'll probably be bargain basement again, and you can conceivably fit he, Upton, S. Drew all in for the price of just Hamels

 

fWAR since 2009:

 

C. Hamels: 13.6

M. Cain: 13.2

E. Jackson: 12.0 (19th-best)

J. Shields: 11.1

M. Garza: 10.8

 

Drew Upton AND Sanchez for the price of Hamels? How much are you thinking here?

 

Is it really inconceivable for a big money franchise like the Cubs going out and buying Hamels, Upton, and Drew? We have the FO and owner who, for the lake of les corny phrases, "want it."

 

I forgot Drew is a FA....that is a nice player. Hell conceivably they can fit Hamels AND Sanchez, which makes a ton of sense as I would not trust Sanchez as anything but the third or fourth guy in an elite rotation.

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

I'm a big Vitters fan and I think you're reaching with him and really reaching with Castillo. The offense will add Jackson and Rizzo to Starlin, that's about it for the immediate future. The offense has pretty much been putrid while the pitching has been solid. The offense needs a bunch of help, the pitching doesn't.

 

Yeah the pitching being solid with Maholm and JAGs behind Garza/Shark is nice. The team should look to get better, not complacent that Paul Maholm and Travis Wood have turned in solid outings.

 

The giant POSSIBLY indicates some form of not entirely serious...I like Vitters but I'm not THAT optimistic about him.

 

What's available...elite bat or elite arm?

[Splendid Splinter]

I think you guys are underestimating what Hamels will get in FA... If he gets only 6 years (if not more), it won't be less than 22 mil/yr and as high as 25 mil/yr IMO. You're talking from 132-150 mil for 6 years. Anibal would be extremely LUCKY to get 20 mil/yr. I'm guessing more like 13-17 mil/yr and 5 yrs max if he's LUCKY. That would be anywhere from 65-85 mil for 5 years. That's a huge difference.

 

 

But then again, Cubs should have a BUTTLOAD of money to spend after this season. I imagine Dempster (14 mil), Maholm (6.5 mil team option), and Wood (3 mil team option) will be gone and Dempster could come back on a 2 year deal at a lower price. Maholm could be back as well, but I was just thinking replacing him with Travis Wood and save themselves some money for FAs (if they decided they're going to spend). Cubs are at around 70 mil next year when you take the 3 guys under contracts and 10 players in arbs (estimated at 38.8 mil) so they'll have to fill 12 spots this offseason. With guys like Rizzo, B Jax, possibly Vitters or Castillo, and the bullpen with arms all from the minors to fill some of those 12 spots, they "should" be able to sign 3 guys that'll command 10+ mil/yr contract easily IMO. That'll still only put them around where they're at this year at around 110 mil.

Edited May 7, 2012 by Splendid Splinter

[davell]

Unless we feel comfortable that adding an Upton and a Hamels can put us squarely in contention, I think you try and bargain hunt on the bat. Sign the big-time pitcher, although I doubt we will. But we could conceivably contend by adding Swisher or Youkilis, along with an arm down to the likes of a Marcum. Leaving plenty of cash available to go and add a bigger name and contract whenever one presents itself.

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

I think you guys are underestimating what Hamels will get in FA... If he gets only 6 years (if not more), it won't be less than 22 mil/yr and as high as 25 mil/yr IMO. You're talking from 132-150 mil for 6 years. Anibal would be extremely LUCKY to get 20 mil/yr. I'm guessing more like 13-17 mil/yr and 5 yrs max if he's LUCKY. That would be anywhere from 65-85 mil for 5 years. That's a huge difference.

 

I agree I was just working with dew's projections made earlier.

 

No way anyone gives Sachez 100 million...For 2-3 nice seasons where he MIGHT top 200 innings once? Personally 14 million per is where I'd tap out, and I'd only be in if I landed a bigger fish first.

 

Personally I think we'll be shocked at how quickly they act once they act...Like you say there should be plenty of money to play with.

[sneakypower]

he MIGHT top 200 innings once?

even AT HIS HEALTHIEST didn't top 200 innings.

Never thrown 200 innings

Hard to buy ... that he's a 200 inning guy right now.

jesus, he's topped 195 innings the past two seasons, quit fixating on this stupid arbitrary threshold already and formulate a new argument that makes sense