Jonah Keri - Five Tips To Get The Cubs On Track

[David]

He doesn't think we should sign Albert or Prince.

 

I like the rest of his points, though, as obvious as they may be.

 

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/8898/five-tips-to-get-the-cubs-on-track

 

The 5 tips... much more at link

1) Sign Grady Sizemore.

2) Explore a long-term contract with Matt Garza.

3) Avoid signing Albert Pujols or Prince Fielder.

4) (Keep) spending over slot in the draft.

5) Find a manager who can complement and propagate the organization's philosophy.

[Tracer Bullet]

1. Hire Theo to get you on track

 

...

 

5. WS

[jersey cubs fan]

those are not tips ot get the cubs on track.

 

giving Garza an extension does nothing to improve the team. Not signing a stud free agent does nothing to improve the team.

[dew1679666265]

The Cubs probably aren't one player away from winning a pennant

 

I simply don't get this idea that if the Cubs sign one of Pujols/Fielder, they'll apparently only sign them to a one year deal or something. If you sign a player to an 8-10 year contract, that player will produce for you for 8-10 years (to different degrees, obviously). You don't have to be ready to win in year one of signing an elite superstar to a long term deal.

 

Other premium free agents will come along when the Cubs are better positioned to make a strong run at a title.

 

I like this idea that premium talent is just kind of always out there, ready to be picked like apples off a tree. Makes you wonder how some teams have such trouble finding premium talent if it's so plentiful that you can so flippantly pass on one of the greatest players to ever step on the diamond.

[Tracer Bullet]

those are not tips ot get the cubs on track.

 

giving Garza an extension does nothing to improve the team. Not signing a stud free agent does nothing to improve the team.

 

In 2012? No. But long term it definitely does.

[Tracer Bullet]

The Cubs probably aren't one player away from winning a pennant

 

I simply don't get this idea that if the Cubs sign one of Pujols/Fielder, they'll apparently only sign them to a one year deal or something. If you sign a player to an 8-10 year contract, that player will produce for you for 8-10 years (to different degrees, obviously). You don't have to be ready to win in year one of signing an elite superstar to a long term deal.

 

Other premium free agents will come along when the Cubs are better positioned to make a strong run at a title.

 

I like this idea that premium talent is just kind of always out there, ready to be picked like apples off a tree. Makes you wonder how some teams have such trouble finding premium talent if it's so plentiful that you can so flippantly pass on one of the greatest players to ever step on the diamond.

 

I'm not sure I agree with Keri, but I don't think it's quite how you're making it seem. Pujols was among the best ever. Is he still a lock to be elite? For how long? I have to say, his age + drop in production this year is a bit concerning. Would you want to be the yankees paying ARod for the rest of his contract?

 

And elite players aren't readily available all the time, but it's not once in a lifetime either. And aging elite player + needing more than a piece or two to be a real WS contender may mean signing pujols isn't the best use of the cubs funds.

 

I'm particularly happy we have the FO we do bc this is a huge decision and I think it's more difficult than most fans appreciate. If we don't sign pujols, I'll at least be able to trust in Jebodore than I would have trusted almost any other FO.

[bhogg]

No doubt in my mind the Cubs can win it all next year. Pixie dust and magic fairies aside, the Cardinals didn't have the '27 Yankees for an every day lineup (for Christ's sake, Theriot hit leadoff in game 7 of the WS!) and their pitching staff wasn't head and shoulders better than anyone. They had a good team, got hot at the right time, and played well in the post season. Take Albert out of that lineup and what would you have?

 

So, yeah, getting Albert or Prince along with some other strategic pieces, you have yourself a contender. Not a 100 win team that runs away with the division, but a contender. It's baseball -- anything can happen!!!

[Tracer Bullet]

Ryan Theriot has a world series ring.

 

Seriously. [expletive] that guy.

[dew1679666265]

I'm not sure I agree with Keri, but I don't think it's quite how you're making it seem. Pujols was among the best ever. Is he still a lock to be elite? For how long? I have to say, his age + drop in production this year is a bit concerning. Would you want to be the yankees paying ARod for the rest of his contract?

 

First off, Pujols is a better player than ARod was at the same age and ARod produced a 5.7 WAR average through the 5 years since his age 32 season. If I knew Pujols was going to give us a 6+ WAR on average in his first 5 years, I'd take the chance that we could get 2-3 WAR average in the second half of the deal.

 

Second, it's not just Pujols we could go after. Fielder isn't likely to age well, but that also doesn't mean he's likely to fall off a cliff when he hits his early 30s. He'll be 28 next year and if signed to an 8 year contract, it's perfectly realistic (and maybe likely) he gives us elite performance for 6 of those years.

 

All that said, the age concerns and this year's dropoff are legitimate concerns and if Keri had stuck to that, I wouldn't have said anything. However, to say the Cubs aren't likely to compete next year and giving that as a reason to pass on both Pujols and Fielder is to ignore how very unlikely it is that either player makes a huge decline after year one of the deal. To conclude that the Cubs shouldn't sign them because of competitiveness reasons means you either think it's likely that they fall apart in the next year or two or it's because you don't think the Cubs can compete for about 3-5 years. Neither of those are good assumptions.

 

And elite players aren't readily available all the time, but it's not once in a lifetime either. And aging elite player + needing more than a piece or two to be a real WS contender may mean signing pujols isn't the best use of the cubs funds.

 

The matchup of need and player doesn't come around all that often - much less than premium talent comes around. The Cubs have nothing in the minors at first, nothing in the majors at first, there appear to be no impact first basemen available in trades, and the Cubs have the payroll to absorb an underproducing player later in his contract. Everything lines up absolutely perfectly for either Pujols or Fielder and it probably won't again any time soon.

 

We passed on Dunn last year (and I supported that call) with an eye toward this year's free agents. If we pass on impact bats at first this year, what do we do at first going forward? Unless Theo/Hoyer can pull a stud first baseman out of their hat, the next possibility is Joey Votto either 2 years from now or at the cost of practically every good minor leaguer we have. There's really no better usage of funds than elite talent at a position of major need.

 

I'm particularly happy we have the FO we do bc this is a huge decision and I think it's more difficult than most fans appreciate. If we don't sign pujols, I'll at least be able to trust in Jebodore than I would have trusted almost any other FO.

 

It is a very big decision and I'm glad it's Theo and Hoyer making the call instead of just about anybody else. And I love the Jebodore name, that's good stuff.

[bhogg]

Ryan Theriot has a world series ring.

 

Seriously. [expletive] that guy.

 

 

He's on the list. . .. the if I ever see him in person I'll beat the [expletive] out of him list. . . .

[jersey cubs fan]

those are not tips ot get the cubs on track.

 

giving Garza an extension does nothing to improve the team. Not signing a stud free agent does nothing to improve the team.

 

In 2012? No. But long term it definitely does.

No

It does not.

It is maintaining the status quo. It may be the right decision. But it does not get the team on track.

[davearm2]

I think the point being made re: Pujols and Fielder is that the Cubs need to have their elite, mega-dollar players be in their prime years when the system eventually starts kicking out Lesters and Papelbons and Ellsburys and Pedroias.

 

Bringing those young players online when the veteran stars are 37 or 38 and clearly in decline (or in Fielder's case, 280# or 300#) won't get the Cubs where they want to get.

 

If that means you pass on this year's elite free agents in favor of those that will come available in 2 or 3 years, so be it.

[El Duderino]

but are there any elite 1b slated to become free agents after this year? votto maybe?

[davell]

In the end, isn't this basically going to wind up just as a quote from Michael Douglas, in Wallstreet......."Pick the dog with the least fleas". Because, in the end. there's really not such a thing as the perfect free agent anyway. So, no matter who it is, or when it is, if a guy looks like he fits in with your plans, go ahead and sign him. Because it's not like we're going to get a bigtime guy on a one or two year deal anyway. Theo already knows this anyway, even if these writers don't have the capability to look past 2012 for some assinine reason.

[MSG T]

I think the point being made re: Pujols and Fielder is that the Cubs need to have their elite, mega-dollar players be in their prime years when the system eventually starts kicking out Lesters and Papelbons and Ellsburys and Pedroias.

 

Bringing those young players online when the veteran stars are 37 or 38 and clearly in decline (or in Fielder's case, 280# or 300#) won't get the Cubs where they want to get.

 

If that means you pass on this year's elite free agents in favor of those that will come available in 2 or 3 years, so be it.

 

Maybe the Cubs aren't contenders in 2012. But add a couple of pieces this offseason and another couple next offseason, both extremely manageable, and they are contenders in 2013. They don't need to wait for all of those young guys to come on line. Pujols/Fielder would both still be producing at an elite level in that time frame.

[MSG T]

but are there any elite 1b slated to become free agents after this year? votto maybe?

 

Even if he looks like it now, is there a guarantee Votto hits free agency? Maybe the Reds lock him up before then, unlikely, or they trade him somewhere that does. I'd much rather take a chance on a guy that is available now.

[dew1679666265]

I think the point being made re: Pujols and Fielder is that the Cubs need to have their elite, mega-dollar players be in their prime years when the system eventually starts kicking out Lesters and Papelbons and Ellsburys and Pedroias.

 

Bringing those young players online when the veteran stars are 37 or 38 and clearly in decline (or in Fielder's case, 280# or 300#) won't get the Cubs where they want to get.

 

If that means you pass on this year's elite free agents in favor of those that will come available in 2 or 3 years, so be it.

 

You don't think we'll be competitive for 6-7 years? That's when Pujols will be 37-38. There's no reason why the Cubs can't be a favorite for a playoff spot as soon as 2013 and they might have an outside chance at one next year. That's if we have an elite talent at first base. And if you look at Fielder, we'd have him through his age 34 season if he signed an 8 year deal.

 

If you sit around waiting for the absolute perfect time for all of your young talent to be in the majors and about ready to peak and for there to be elite talent on the free agent market at the exact position you have a need, you're probably never going to sign any elite free agent. That scenario can't be planned and elite free agent players don't come around every offseason.

 

To me, it's perfectly logical to jump at the opportunity for a big market team capable of turning things around in a year or two (and has done it twice in about 8 years) and with no MLB talent at first base above rookie league (or wherever Vogelbach is) to sign an elite talent that should have at minimum 3-4 years of prime left.

[dew1679666265]

but are there any elite 1b slated to become free agents after this year? votto maybe?

 

Votto's basically it. He'll be a free agent in the 2013 offseason and will turn 31 during the 2014 season (the first year we'd have him).

[davearm2]

I think the point being made re: Pujols and Fielder is that the Cubs need to have their elite, mega-dollar players be in their prime years when the system eventually starts kicking out Lesters and Papelbons and Ellsburys and Pedroias.

 

Bringing those young players online when the veteran stars are 37 or 38 and clearly in decline (or in Fielder's case, 280# or 300#) won't get the Cubs where they want to get.

 

If that means you pass on this year's elite free agents in favor of those that will come available in 2 or 3 years, so be it.

 

You don't think we'll be competitive for 6-7 years? That's when Pujols will be 37-38. There's no reason why the Cubs can't be a favorite for a playoff spot as soon as 2013 and they might have an outside chance at one next year. That's if we have an elite talent at first base. And if you look at Fielder, we'd have him through his age 34 season if he signed an 8 year deal.

 

If you sit around waiting for the absolute perfect time for all of your young talent to be in the majors and about ready to peak and for there to be elite talent on the free agent market at the exact position you have a need, you're probably never going to sign any elite free agent. That scenario can't be planned and elite free agent players don't come around every offseason.

 

To me, it's perfectly logical to jump at the opportunity for a big market team capable of turning things around in a year or two (and has done it twice in about 8 years) and with no MLB talent at first base above rookie league (or wherever Vogelbach is) to sign an elite talent that should have at minimum 3-4 years of prime left.

Well to be clear, I'm just restating this author's viewpoint.

 

I hope the Cubs are going to have a lot of great young talent on the bigleague roster in 6-7 years. It would be a shame if they were limited in what they could spend on a Mike Trout or a Bryce Harper (or some other organization's Starlin Castro for that matter) because they still owe a formerly-impactful Albert Pujols $100M.

 

Anyway, the point is that ideally, you want your big-dollar free agent's prime years to overlap with your homegrown guys' cheap MLB years. Right now the Cubs don't have that volume of cheap homegrown guys that are producing at a high level in the bigleagues... Castro is basically it. Thus, however many prime years Pujols/Fielder have left would not be leveraged well here.

[SouthSideRyan]

but are there any elite 1b slated to become free agents after this year? votto maybe?

 

Votto's basically it. He'll be a free agent in the 2013 offseason and will turn 31 during the 2014 season (the first year we'd have him).

 

If you really want Votto in 2014, I'm pretty sure you could find a taker for Prince Fielder in a trade.

[dew1679666265]

I hope the Cubs are going to have a lot of great young talent on the bigleague roster in 6-7 years. It would be a shame if they were limited in what they could spend on a Mike Trout or a Bryce Harper (or some other organization's Starlin Castro for that matter) because they still owe a formerly-impactful Albert Pujols $100M.

 

If the Cubs are struggling to have two high priced, non-home grown players on their roster in 2018, then either Theo/Hoyer/McLeod have done a really poor job on the farm system and/or Ricketts has reigned in spending to a huge degree.

 

This is a team with a very big payroll, the means by which to expand it, and the owner willing to pour money into the product on the field. If the three-headed monster heading up the Cubs builds the type of farm system we all expect them to, then we'll have a steady stream of cheap, productive players hitting Chicago each year. If that's the case, and payroll keeps rising as it should, then the Cubs shouldn't be hard pressed to sign a major impact player if they feel one is worth the cost.

 

The Phillies have two players making $20 million, one making $15 million, and one making $10 million and still were able to find the budget room to fit in Cliff Lee at $24 million AAV. That's $65 million tied up in 4 players (without counting Lee) and two of those players are Ryan Howard making $20 million per and Joe Blanton making $10 million per. Overpaying one player isn't going to cripple this franchise if it's built well, and there's no reason to believe Theo and co won't build it well.

 

Anyway, the point is that ideally, you want your big-dollar free agent's prime years to overlap with your homegrown guys' cheap MLB years. Right now the Cubs don't have that volume of cheap homegrown guys that are producing at a high level in the bigleagues... Castro is basically it. Thus, however many prime years Pujols/Fielder have left would not be leveraged well here.

 

I understand that point, but it's an idealistic scenario that isn't likely to happen. There's never a perfect scenario to overpay for a player. There's always some reason why you shouldn't sign a guy. If you have the means to pay a player without crippling yourself, you have a major need at a position, and you have two elite players on the free agent market, you're not going to find a more perfect scenario.

[Sammy Sofa]

dew just made a point that too many don't seem to get; if the Cubs are somehow "crippled" or severely limited by Pujols making $25-$30 million a year 7 years from now then the organization has severely fucked up across the board. This is a team that should be able to take a contract that size and still have plenty left to work with, ESPECIALLY when you're looking at almost a decade from now.

[Tracer Bullet]

those are not tips ot get the cubs on track.

 

giving Garza an extension does nothing to improve the team. Not signing a stud free agent does nothing to improve the team.

 

In 2012? No. But long term it definitely does.

No

It does not.

It is maintaining the status quo. It may be the right decision. But it does not get the team on track.

 

I agree it doesn't get them on track. But it does improve the team. Locking up great young players for long term deals (assuming decent rates) is a long term improvement over not having them signed for more than a year or two.

[jiml60]

Ryan Theriot has a world series ring.

 

Seriously. [expletive] that guy.

 

 

The terrorists have won.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Ryan Theriot has a world series ring.

 

Seriously. [expletive] that guy.

 

He can pawn it for beer money when he's playing for the Newark Bears next year.