Re: What would you deal Garza for?

[Exile on Waveland]

I think it's pretty clear the implication here is not that Hamels is a better pitcher because he's pitched on better teams. It's that he may be more prepared to handle the pressure of signing a huge contract and moving teams (in his case, another high-pressure city/franchise). This would basically be a lateral move for Hamels; not so for Sanchez. I have no idea how either would react, or if it would even necessarily matter; but even Albert Pujols is seemingly struggling with this and "pressing" (unless you think he is hurt, or completely fell off a cliff at somepoint between the World Series and Opening Day). Moreover, you've mentioned that you're reluctant to sign Grienke because of his anxiety, which is basically a different way of saying that mental matters as well as physical.

 

Now, most all of this unlicensed psychoanalzying will be factored in their respective contracts -- obviously, "baseball people" love the "winner" label -- so it's probably a moot point. And, personally, I'm guessing Sanchez will sign a much more reasonable (repeat: reasonable, not just cheaper) contract than Hamels, and I'd rather leave room for Upton in any case. But I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Hamels' success in a figurative fish bowl.

 

I actually hadn't even thought of it that way. That argument (or phrasing, maybe) makes a lot more sense, but I'm not sure it's a significant factor. It might help Hamels be a little better a little quicker, but over the course of the contract it shouldn't make much of a difference.

 

On Greinke, that's an actual diagnosed disorder, not just amateur psychoanalyzing leading to concern. It's a far more significant issue for Greinke than it would be for Hamels/Anibal/nearly any other ML SP.

 

Hey, I readily admit -- and, at least, tried to admit in my original post -- that it's probably not a significant factor and it's certainly not one that's really measurable or predictible (and, again, I suspect it will already be factored into their contracts). I certainly don't think it's dispositive. But I do think, between the two, Hamels would be more likely to feel unburdened by his contract.

 

And no arguments that Greinke's issues run deeper.

[davell]

The Upton trade isn't until 2014 folks.

 

I understand that's tongue in cheek and all, but I think Justin is there for the long haul, due to all the young pitching they've got on the way. If we make a bigtime trade for an impact guy, I could see Felix or possibly David Price/Evan Longoria in that general time frame.

[Exile on Waveland]

2. Both pitchers are 7-year major league veterans. We know what they're each capable of doing. Pedigree means nothing at this point. Your statistical history is your statistical history. Hamels isn't a better pitcher because he might or might not be a "winner." He certainly isn't a better pitcher because his teams have been better.

 

I think it's pretty clear the implication here is not that Hamels is a better pitcher because he's pitched on better teams. It's that he may be more prepared to handle the pressure of signing a huge contract and moving teams (in his case, another high-pressure city/franchise). This would basically be a lateral move for Hamels; not so for Sanchez. I have no idea how either would react, or if it would even necessarily matter; but even Albert Pujols is seemingly struggling with this and "pressing" (unless you think he is hurt, or completely fell off a cliff at somepoint between the World Series and Opening Day). Moreover, you've mentioned that you're reluctant to sign Grienke because of his anxiety, which is basically a different way of saying that mental matters as well as physical.

 

Now, most all of this unlicensed psychoanalzying will be factored in their respective contracts -- obviously, "baseball people" love the "winner" label -- so it's probably a moot point. And, personally, I'm guessing Sanchez will sign a much more reasonable (repeat: reasonable, not just cheaper) contract than Hamels, and I'd rather leave room for Upton in any case. But I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Hamels' success in a figurative fish bowl.

 

This is exactly it on that point, and that's exactly what pedigree is in the first place. Don't think this won't matter to teams that Hamels was the ace on a WS winner while Sanchez has been a non-ace on a bottom dweller. It's like any other field...The more you've seen and done matters, ESPECIALLY since they're essentially the same age.

 

I'll have to get to the rest of that post later. Too many words for a phone. Will point out that Samchez has been healthy all of two years in the big league, hence the gloss over injuries point. Pinning injuries on a guy at 34-35 makes little sense when you're pushing giving 5 to a talent that has been far more damaged for years. Btw giving 5 to Sanchez makes him 33-34...Thisnisnt even a fn contest objectively. Sanchez would make a nice Dempster replacement...Hamels gives the Cubs a guy who's a legit #1 start on pretty much every rotation in the league.

 

I'm not necessarily pro-Sanchez. But while I'd love to add Hamels, I suspect he's going to get a crazy contract (more Fielder than Pujols).

[dew1679666265]

This is exactly it on that point, and that's exactly what pedigree is in the first place. Don't think this won't matter to teams that Hamels was the ace on a WS winner while Sanchez has been a non-ace on a bottom dweller. It's like any other field...The more you've seen and done matters, ESPECIALLY since they're essentially the same age.

 

Teams will take into consideration that Hamels was the ace on a WS winning team, but they also think that a pitcher who "wins" 14 games is really impressive. If something that doesn't mean a significant amount drops Anibal's price tag a bit, all the better.

 

I'll have to get to the rest of that post later. Too many words for a phone. Will point out that Samchez has been healthy all of two years in the big league, hence the gloss over injuries point. Pinning injuries on a guy at 34-35 makes little sense when you're pushing giving 5 to a talent that has been far more damaged for years. Btw giving 5 to Sanchez makes him 33-34...Thisnisnt even a fn contest objectively. Sanchez would make a nice Dempster replacement...Hamels gives the Cubs a guy who's a legit #1 start on pretty much every rotation in the league.

 

If price and length of contract is not considered, of course it's no contest. But you have to take those things into consideration and if I can pay a guy $30+ million less for 1-2 years fewer, and know that the production on the field isn't all that dissimilar, I have to look at that.

 

As for Anibal's age - he'll turn 29 in February. Thus, a five year deal would make him 33 in his final season as a Cub. And a 5-year deal isn't something I'm chomping at the bit to give him. I'm willing to, but only under the right circumstances (i.e. the AAV is much lower). Hamels turns 29 in December, so a 6-year deal would mean he'd be signed through his age 34 season and a 7-year deal (very realistic) would mean he was signed through his age 35 season. Add in that Hamels likely gets at the very least $30+ million more than Anibal and that becomes a significant extra investment.

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

The Upton trade isn't until 2014 folks.

 

I understand that's tongue in cheek and all, but I think Justin is there for the long haul, due to all the young pitching they've got on the way. If we make a bigtime trade for an impact guy, I could see Felix or possibly David Price/Evan Longoria in that general time frame.

 

Yeah I've pegged Price as a Cubs for a while. No actual clue why just have...obsessed with pitching maybe.

[Backtobanks]

Nice analysis. The problem is that outside of Hamels and Upton, I don't see anyone standing out as an impact player. Some would make a nice addition to the team, but not really making them into an instant contender.

 

Agreed. It's also why for some reason... I have a gut feeling that Theo/Hoyer will shock everyone and trade for an impact player (could be like Justin Upton or King Felix for example) since there's only 2 that could be a FA this offseason. Although I'm not sure how they will get a guy like through a trade, but it's just a funny feeling I got.

 

I don't see the pieces we currently have being nearly enough to get something like that done yet honestly. Especially since I really think we're counting on Brett moving forward and certainly Rizzo. I'm not sure they even know for sure which direction they're taking yet with Garza. If he's dealt, then the people saying we're 2014 or later before we're contending are right, in all likelihood.

 

It looks like a lot of the missing pieces will have to come via trade. We have to hope that Brett and Rizzo both play up to their potential so that we can afford to trade other prospects in a blockbuster deal. Brett, Rizzo, a solid FA, and one blockbuster deal could make the Cubs solid contenders.

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

This is exactly it on that point, and that's exactly what pedigree is in the first place. Don't think this won't matter to teams that Hamels was the ace on a WS winner while Sanchez has been a non-ace on a bottom dweller. It's like any other field...The more you've seen and done matters, ESPECIALLY since they're essentially the same age.

 

Teams will take into consideration that Hamels was the ace on a WS winning team, but they also think that a pitcher who "wins" 14 games is really impressive. If something that doesn't mean a significant amount drops Anibal's price tag a bit, all the better.

 

I'll have to get to the rest of that post later. Too many words for a phone. Will point out that Samchez has been healthy all of two years in the big league, hence the gloss over injuries point. Pinning injuries on a guy at 34-35 makes little sense when you're pushing giving 5 to a talent that has been far more damaged for years. Btw giving 5 to Sanchez makes him 33-34...Thisnisnt even a fn contest objectively. Sanchez would make a nice Dempster replacement...Hamels gives the Cubs a guy who's a legit #1 start on pretty much every rotation in the league.

 

If price and length of contract is not considered, of course it's no contest. But you have to take those things into consideration and if I can pay a guy $30+ million less for 1-2 years fewer, and know that the production on the field isn't all that dissimilar, I have to look at that.

 

As for Anibal's age - he'll turn 29 in February. Thus, a five year deal would make him 33 in his final season as a Cub. And a 5-year deal isn't something I'm chomping at the bit to give him. I'm willing to, but only under the right circumstances (i.e. the AAV is much lower). Hamels turns 29 in December, so a 6-year deal would mean he'd be signed through his age 34 season and a 7-year deal (very realistic) would mean he was signed through his age 35 season. Add in that Hamels likely gets at the very least $30+ million more than Anibal and that becomes a significant extra investment.

 

You're assuming the production moving forward will be similar when even there I disagree...Similar usually is a nice way of saying proportionally worse so sure it fits, but that's not something I'm jumping at the chance to throw money at that.

 

Maybe if Sanchez wasn't the proud owner of a multi-surgery arm he'd be more appealing but he's a second tier arm and the Cubs are a team looking for impact talent. If the Cubs had a more complete roster, then sure, but even then they should be leery with that kind of history.

 

Going after pitchers with checkered injury histories is not something they should be committed to doing unless its on a very, very clearly a steal for the talent type deal (usually considered a gamble at the time of signing a la Carpenter or even Lieber to a point). Sanchez isn't the missing piece and he's not enough of an impact piece to throw money at, WAR be damned.

 

Finally, I think he stays in Miami anyway. In fact, I think he's more likely to remain with his team than Hamels is. I again have to insist that the only rebuilt shoulder they should chase is Upton's.

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

Btw pedigree won't drop Sanchez's price (value) for anyone but the big boys in the league who have to (should?) consider these kind of things. What's really going to drop his general price is his medical history, rightfully so. Even then his past two years will net him a nice contract because people like to overpay for pitching and will happily eliminate context (pitching in Pro Player >>> pitching in Lincoln, and IIRC that park helped K numbers) that doesn't fit the slant.

 

All in all, I'd still rather see the Cubs spend on the stud talent rather than settle on the cheaper option because his stats are kinda sorta within range. In today's world he's not some sleeper...Theres nothing wrong with spending the money, and there's many reasons Hamels will get paid like he might/will.

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

Prepare for alot of words NSBB. I had to do it.

 

I was responding to a point you made about how unbelievable it would be that the Cubs would stop their pursuit of Upton because they had Hamels. I responded that I wouldn't have expected them to stop their pursuit of Cespedes simply because they couldn't get him on the perfect contract, but they did. Which means, I'm not sure what their finances are like and what their ultimate plan is for building this team, so I can't speak to whether signing Hamels would stop them from pursuing Upton. I don't think any of us know that.

 

That has nothing to do with me managing their finances, though.

 

I'm just going to go out on the limb and say the Cubs can spend, and they'll be able to spend with anyone. I have exactly 0 doubts about that, even if I don't know for sure. It's a much safer guess than them having to pinch pennies.

 

Basically, my point in making that statement was to say the smallest amount of money I could possibly see being the difference in total value between Anibal and Hamels' contracts was about $20 million. Meaning I fully expect the difference to be much, much higher than that.

 

There's plenty of reason for that, starting with Sanchez being the far inferior talent.

 

1. I'm not glossing over anything. Sanchez has more risk than Hamels at getting hurt, but both are far greater risks than any hitter for injury/decline simply because they are pitchers. If I'm going to sign a massive risk, I'd rather sign the lesser commitment and that player is Sanchez. If we had a greater need, I might be willing to take on the greater commitment to Hamels, but we don't.

 

First off...right off the bat you're completely in denial if you think that the Cubs don't have the need.

 

Now:

 

Hamels - 32 starts in every season since 2007 (31 in 2011 with a relief appearance, makes up for it by setting a career high in IP)

 

Sanchez - 2 seasons with 32 starts, 0 with 200 IP, and 4 seasons full of injuries and surgeries

 

Personally, when I take on a massive risk I like to do it on the best possible talent. That is the person/thing with the best combination of talent, health, and results.

 

3. Once again, no I did not suggest we pay Sanchez $100 million. I said someone might as an example of the absolute highest contract he might receive. I would not be in favor of the Cubs going that high. His very good numbers the past couple of seasons are very relevant to the discussion however, since his fWAR numbers have been very similar to Hamels' the past couple of years. Maybe he's not a far inferior pitcher. Maybe he's just a little worse.

 

No. No. No no no no. NEIN.

 

1 - bWAR has Hamels at 5.5 and 6.6 WAR the past two years. Sanchez? 2.8 and 3.9.

 

2 - Hamels xFIP over that time? 3.28 and 3.02. Sanchez? 4.04 and 3.25.

 

3 – Sanchez’s full seasons happened to come in a dramatically different run environment, though I guess I can leave that alone because Hamels is pitching now too.

 

4 – OTOH, Hamels pitched in a much more hitter friendly park than what Sanchez pitched in during 2011 and 2010. I’ll have to find the link, but Pro Player was also a booster for players’ K rates so there’s even danger there for Sanchez. In 2011 alone Pro Player was 6% below the league average while the Philly park is somewhere in the 3-5 range, I forget.

 

5 – Hamels’ career K rate is almost a full K higher, his K:BB for his career is over a 1.5 times higher (3.81 to 2.15 IIRC), his xFIP is better, his SIERA is better, he’s produced more WAR from either bbref or Fangraphs, AND he’s bigger, healthier, and for the hell of it LH.

 

6 – The big age advantage? EXACTLY 2 months (12/27/83 vs 2/27/84).

 

This isn’t slightly worse, it’s an asskicking. It’s a pretty bad ass kicking.

 

4. sneaky covered this pretty well. His price is far lower than Hamels because he has had injury problems throughout his career. Statistically, he's not that much inferior of a pitcher. Both are a gamble, Anibal moreso, but there's less commitment with Anibal and when signing pitchers, I tend to lean toward lesser commitment.

 

See above, but again I go with the better talent all day err day.

 

5. It is very nice that Hamels is a lefty posting very good K rates. However, over the past couple of seasons, Anibal has been right there with Hamels on K rate, only half a K behind him. Anibal isn't some mid-rotation scrub that might get severely overpaid. This is an elite talent who has struggled with injuries. The upside is very much there with Anibal nearly as much as it is with Hamels. I realize the risk is greater with Anibal, but the risk is great with both, and the commitment to Anibal is less.

 

1 – There is NOTHING wrong with being a mid-rotation starter, and those guys are generally not scrubs if they can do it for a while.

 

2 – He’s probably going to get severely overpaid.

 

3 – He is without a doubt NOT an elite talent. Not even close. A half decade+ ago when he was a top notch prospect who DIDN’T have all the arm troubles? Sure. Now? He’s a nice starter for the Marlins who is almost 30 and hasn’t pitched 200 innings in a major league season. That’s not elite. That’s closer to the mid-rotation scrub thing you think he’s not.

 

4 – The risk is great with Sanchez is all that needs to be said. It’s probably the most factual statement you’ve made so far (along with the commitment being less). The injuries don't just make him a better candidate to get injured again, but they also will likely lead to more sudden decline. A decade ago he wouldn't even have a career...

 

My primary interest in Sanchez is that I have very little interest in giving a pitcher 6-7 years when he'll be 34-35 by the end of the deal, regardless of who that is. Hamels will demand that, Sanchez will not. We would be paying Sanchez until he's 32-33, we would be paying Hamels until he's 34-35 and paying him much, much more money. If Sanchez were a significantly inferior pitcher, I wouldn't make this argument. But he's not. He's worse, but has proven the past couple of years that he's not much worse.

 

1 – He hasn’t proven shyte over the past couple of years other than he might be over his injuries and that he’s a solid pitcher when healthy (which most knew anyway).

 

2 – My primary interest in Hamels is that he’s bigger, better, far more experienced/well traveled, has a significantly better shot at remaining healthy through his deal, AND he’s an ACTUAL elite talent capable of fronting a championship caliber rotation. My seeming disdain for Sanchez comes from him being a far lesser talent to Hamels, and the difference in cost isn’t enough to throw out that it comes solely because of Sanchez’s ridiculously bad medical history. Do some research and point to me the #1s who fell completely off a cliff in their early 30's (I'll spot you Pedro, though I'm not completely sure of it)...Clemens, Schilling, RJ, Pettite, Mussina, Madddux, Glavine, Smoltz, Halladay, Lee...why am I drawing a blank here...[expletive] well the list is long with guys who did just fine in their early 30's despite that being ancient. It's a new age...30 is the new 27...and I'm not even sure I'm being all that crazy saying that.

 

3 – He is a significantly lesser pitcher when you take everything in.

 

This isn’t even a contest, and doing the research made me not even want to consider Sanchez as a mid-rotation option. There’s too much there saying “stay the hell away.”

[Exile on Waveland]

At the very least, your seeming obsession with "200 innings" is detracting from your overall argument -- especially when Sanchez has pitched 195 and 196 innings the last two years. Now, if you want to say "only twice in his career has Sanchez pitched an acceptable amount of innings for a starter," that might be more persuasive.

[TruffleShuffle]

Do some research and point to me the #1s who fell completely off a cliff in their early 30's

 

in their late 20s or early 30s?

 

barry zito, mike hampton, johan santana, jake peavy, jason schmidt, john lackey, roy oswalt (didn't completely fall off a cliff, but certainly regressed)

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

At the very least, your seeming obsession with "200 innings" is detracting from your overall argument -- especially when Sanchez has pitched 195 and 196 innings the last two years. Now, if you want to say "only twice in his career has Sanchez pitched an acceptable amount of innings for a starter," that might be more persuasive.

 

It's the same thing to me, and it's not good either way you word it. Whatever gets the point across that he's not close to elite or in the vicinity of Hamels as a pitcher.

[ConstableRabbit]

Do some research and point to me the #1s who fell completely off a cliff in their early 30's

 

in their late 20s or early 30s?

 

barry zito, mike hampton, johan santana, jake peavy, jason schmidt, john lackey, roy oswalt (didn't completely fall off a cliff, but certainly regressed)

Johan fell off a cliff?

[TruffleShuffle]

Do some research and point to me the #1s who fell completely off a cliff in their early 30's

 

in their late 20s or early 30s?

 

barry zito, mike hampton, johan santana, jake peavy, jason schmidt, john lackey, roy oswalt (didn't completely fall off a cliff, but certainly regressed)

Johan fell off a cliff?

 

well he certainly hasn't been as good as he was with the twins (K/9 IP: 9.5 with twins, 7.6 with mets) and he's missed a lot of time due to injury, which is a risk you take when you sign a high-priced free agent to a big contract.

[Clem Fandango]

Matt Garza

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

Do some research and point to me the #1s who fell completely off a cliff in their early 30's

 

in their late 20s or early 30s?

 

barry zito, mike hampton, johan santana, jake peavy, jason schmidt, john lackey, roy oswalt (didn't completely fall off a cliff, but certainly regressed)

Johan fell off a cliff?[/quote ]

 

Zito was falling apart in his 20's. If anything he was better at 31 and 32 than he was at 29 or 30, but he hadn't been great since 25. Pretty sure Hampton was the same deal being done early. Schmidt didn't even put it together until 29 when he started pumping 99 MPH fastballs, Lackey is a good one but as a junk ball RH who got hit with injuries he's more Sanchez than Hamels?....Santana can still pitch...Oswalt went out a 2.5 WAR pitcher in 139 innings at 34 and could probably still give quality innings....whatshisname...Peavy blew his arm out in his 20's and just turned 30...

 

None really following a similar career path here either....for instance who's got a better K rate and was increasing it into their late 20's? Did that while improving control and even getting more groundballs? No significant injury history? THe guy has been getting better the past couple of years.

 

Mussina...David Wells....CC is doing it now (cruising in his early 30's after pitching great and accomplishing extraordinary things in his 20s like staying healthy)...

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

http://mobile.bluebirdbanter.com/2006/2/11/205541/519

 

Link for Pro Player effect on K/9.

[Clem Fandango]

Jon Heyman of CBSSports.com reports that the Cubs are looking to extend Matt Garza, not trade him.

General manager Jed Hoyer indicated as much back in February. Heyman notes that "there's nothing hot right now, but the lines of communication are open." Things can always change closer to the deadline if the Cubs are overwhelmed by an offer, but it appears, at least for the time being, that they'll hang on to the 28-year-old.

[mookie]

Jon Heyman really busting out with some new information.

[davell]

Wittenmeyer actually did come up with a bit of new stuff, saying we can hold on to him all year, without extending him, if we feel like we may be ready to compete in 2013.

[El Duderino]

extend him before he wants cain money.

[CyHawk_Cub]

extend him before he wants cain money.

 

I have the feeling it's too late for that

[Guest]

Terry Boers just asked why they would re-sign him when they are not going to be good for 5 years. :banghead:

[davell]

5 years? I'm loving the optimism this board has been showing about us contending next year even. I can't wait to see what this board becomes when Rizzo and Brett come up and play well.

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

5 years? I'm loving the optimism this board has been showing about us contending next year even. I can't wait to see what this board becomes when Rizzo and Brett come up and play well.

 

I know what I'm going to say. They both K too much.