Star players and how they are acquired

[jersey cubs fan]

But some people (Jersey) want everybody.

 

Yeah, that's what I said. We got another illiterate here.

 

 

There's a wide gulf between nobody and everybody. But you don't like to hear stuff like that I know.

[davell]

It's amazing how much certain players improve based on how badly we need them to be certain things. Soler is suddenly an offseason prize instead of a Cespedes afterthought, and I really wanted Darvish to be a legit ace.

I wanted Soler more as soon as some things were posted about him. Especially when it's not a lock Cespedes, at 26, and probably 3 times the money, even starts off in the majors.

[XZero771679666304]

But some people (Jersey) want everybody.

 

Yeah, that's what I said. We got another illiterate here.

 

 

There's a wide gulf between nobody and everybody. But you don't like to hear stuff like that I know.

 

That's how you're acting. There are still several prime targets on the board, but you're accusing the FO of ignoring all FA.

 

They've just passed on the ones you really wanted, so you're having a hissy fit, or so it appears.

[JoshiQ]

But some people (Jersey) want everybody.

 

Yeah, that's what I said. We got another illiterate here.

 

 

There's a wide gulf between nobody and everybody. But you don't like to hear stuff like that I know.

 

That's how you're acting. There are still several prime targets on the board, but you're accusing the FO of ignoring all FA.

 

They've just passed on the ones you really wanted, so you're having a hissy fit, or so it appears.

 

Main thing I've been getting out of it is that in a pretty strong FA year, where we have money coming off the books, a year where the Yankees and Red Sox aren't spending money, and where the FA's would fill holes that we have (nothing prospect wise either), we haven't done anything.

 

If we get the Cubans and Fielder, there might be a different outlook from some members on the board. But for right now, our team that sucked last year is getting worse day by day. And I don't see it being much better in 2013 unless we pop open the checkbook despite all this amazing young talent we've picked up.

[Rob]

But some people (Jersey) want everybody.

 

Yeah, that's what I said. We got another illiterate here.

 

 

There's a wide gulf between nobody and everybody. But you don't like to hear stuff like that I know.

 

Early favorite for most ironic post of the year?

 

Jersey, you've spent all offseason acting like a petulant child whose mother said "no" at the toy store.

[XZero771679666304]

But some people (Jersey) want everybody.

 

Yeah, that's what I said. We got another illiterate here.

 

 

There's a wide gulf between nobody and everybody. But you don't like to hear stuff like that I know.

 

That's how you're acting. There are still several prime targets on the board, but you're accusing the FO of ignoring all FA.

 

They've just passed on the ones you really wanted, so you're having a hissy fit, or so it appears.

 

Main thing I've been getting out of it is that in a pretty strong FA year, where we have money coming off the books, a year where the Yankees and Red Sox aren't spending money, and where the FA's would fill holes that we have (nothing prospect wise either), we haven't done anything.

 

If we get the Cubans and Fielder, there might be a different outlook from some members on the board. But for right now, our team that sucked last year is getting worse day by day. And I don't see it being much better in 2013 unless we pop open the checkbook despite all this amazing young talent we've picked up.

 

People are casting aspersions and declaring that the FO is actively and intentionally crapping the bed while most of the most likely FA targets (based on what Theo said day 1) are still on the board.

 

I, for one, find this line to be hysterical and premature. I just think people should wait and get a little more perspective (such as seeing what happens between now and ST) before freaking the [expletive] out. I mean we're not children here, are we?

 

I know we have a hole at 1B and Pujols and Fielder are as good as it was going to get for a long time as far as FA 1B go. But Pujols has significant risk (not the kind of risk you see with most FA) and the contract he got was just too much given those risks.

 

But Fielder is still out there, is likely to be had for far less than what Albert did and depending on who you believe, the Cubs are very much in on him. I am very much in favor of matching or exceeding the maximum offer he is likely to get. And the Cubans, who very much fit the mold of being long term assets.

 

I'm not thrilled with the offseason so far, I'm just in favor of reserving alarmist, pejorative judgement until a little bit of context is available.

[Sammy Sofa]

Until they actually start making moves like that there's nothing wrong with griping how anti-climactic things have been so far.

[XZero771679666304]

Until they actually start making moves like that there's nothing wrong with griping how anti-climactic things have been so far.

 

Griping is one thing. Jersey and SSR were doing more than griping, they have been freaking out.

 

 

You can do that, it just makes you look like a nutcase.

[Sammy Sofa]

Man, nobody is freaking out, man.

[El Duderino]

nothing is fucked, here, man.

[Little Slide Rooter]

If 2013 rolls around and the heart of our lineup consists of Brian LaHair, Darwin Barney, Starlin Castro, Blake DeWitt, Dave Sappelt, Reed Johnson, David DeJesus, and Wellingon Castillo and a rotation of Trey McNutt, Travis Wood, Chris Volstad, Randy Wells, and Andy Sonnenstine, then I'll freak out. Until then, I'll keep the faith in the guy everyone was orgasming over just over 2 months ago. Will I gripe about moves that I don't like or simply understand? Absolutely, but at the end of day, I know that Epstein and Hoyer weren't brought here to fight Billy Beane over crap like Ryan Spilborghs and Neil Cotts for the next 5 years.

[dew1679666265]

Here's a question: Signing an elite player in Pujols at 10/275 or so has been deemed a risk too great to take, but there doesn't seem to be much hesitation in pursuing pitchers (admittedly elite) about to turn 30 to huge deals, possibly/probably as long as 6-8 years.

 

Going by TT's baseline of 5+ WAR being an elite player (I looked at the previous three seasons), six of the upcoming possible FA pitchers meet that criteria: Greinke will be 29 if he hits the market, Hamels 29, Cain 28, Haren 32, Liriano 29, Shields 31. Of those players, Hamels and Shields barely missed the mark but I included them anyway (both had peaks of 4.9 WAR) and Liriano had sub-2.0 WAR seasons bookending his 6.0 WAR year.

 

My question is, if it's that bad an idea to give one of the greatest all-around players in the history of the game a monster contract, is it that much smarter to give a near-30 pitcher a potentially monster contract (6-8 years is very realistic, I think)? I don't think so, given the huge amount of additional risk associated with a pitcher than with a hitter. All of those guys would be in their mid-30s by the time their deals run out - if they all hit FA as it is.

 

What I see as of right now, and even if we do sign guys like Cespedes and Soler who aren't sure bets to be highly productive major leaguers, is a team that will have to be aggressive in FA during the 2012 offseason in order to seriously compete in 2013. Theo may yet have some tricks up his sleeve to keep that from being the case, but as things stand now I'm having trouble seeing it. I'd have much rather been more aggressive this offseason for Pujols and Prince (we still could be) than to be set up to have to hand out 1-2 major contracts to pitchers in order to be competitive in 2013.

[davearm2]

Or, Theo and Hoyer are brilliant enough not to get themselves into this situation in the first place, given the current FA options available and the state of the roster.

 

Again, there are no perfect free agents. In your scenarios the Cubs will never sign a free agent. That means you must be willing to wait for three or four years for the Cubs to be competitive.

It should come as no surprise that I have heard this response from a lot of folks around here.

 

And they're all wrong.

[davearm2]

 

At the conclusion of this offseason, I sincerely doubt Jersey would be able to find one person on this board willing to say he/she would not have been willing to acquire any of Pujols/Fielder/Darvish/Cespedes at the price it took to acquire them. If, by some miracle he did manage to find any, I'd wager that they would be a clear minority.

 

davearm, maybe.

 

davearm is the exception that proves the rule.

Ouch.

 

We've talked ad infinitum about Pujols and Fielder.

 

My comfort level with Darvish is somewhere in the $20M/yr range (including posting). That would put him in the top 5 highest paid pitchers (without looking). It looks like $20M is not going to be enough to get him signed sealed and delivered. Closer to $25M/yr probably.

 

I'm bullish and hopeful on both of the Cubans.

[XZero771679666304]

Here's a question: Signing an elite player in Pujols at 10/275 or so has been deemed a risk too great to take, but there doesn't seem to be much hesitation in pursuing pitchers (admittedly elite) about to turn 30 to huge deals, possibly/probably as long as 6-8 years.

 

Going by TT's baseline of 5+ WAR being an elite player (I looked at the previous three seasons), six of the upcoming possible FA pitchers meet that criteria: Greinke will be 29 if he hits the market, Hamels 29, Cain 28, Haren 32, Liriano 29, Shields 31. Of those players, Hamels and Shields barely missed the mark but I included them anyway (both had peaks of 4.9 WAR) and Liriano had sub-2.0 WAR seasons bookending his 6.0 WAR year.

 

My question is, if it's that bad an idea to give one of the greatest all-around players in the history of the game a monster contract, is it that much smarter to give a near-30 pitcher a potentially monster contract (6-8 years is very realistic, I think)? I don't think so, given the huge amount of additional risk associated with a pitcher than with a hitter. All of those guys would be in their mid-30s by the time their deals run out - if they all hit FA as it is.

 

What I see as of right now, and even if we do sign guys like Cespedes and Soler who aren't sure bets to be highly productive major leaguers, is a team that will have to be aggressive in FA during the 2012 offseason in order to seriously compete in 2013. Theo may yet have some tricks up his sleeve to keep that from being the case, but as things stand now I'm having trouble seeing it. I'd have much rather been more aggressive this offseason for Pujols and Prince (we still could be) than to be set up to have to hand out 1-2 major contracts to pitchers in order to be competitive in 2013.

 

Of the pitchers you mentioned, I think only Cain and Hamels have a realistic shot of getting more than 5 years.

 

None of them is going to get a deal remotely commensurate with the one Pujols got. And I maintain that Pujols is no longer the player he was, or at the very least, he's at the tail end of his elite-level production. You'd give him 10/270 knowing he is 32, in decline (only the severity of that decline is in question) and you'd be getting none of his prime, and you'd do so without significant compunction?

 

EDIT:

 

And knowing there was a good plan B in Fielder?

Edited January 6, 2012 by XZero77

[Little Slide Rooter]

I didn't realize that Shields was 31. If he has another year like last year, 5 years isn't out of the question. Haren too.I think the Angels hold his option and if so, they'll likely pick it up. However, depending on how long Cain and Hamels last in the market if they make it to free agency, Haren and Shields should get 5 years depending on how many teams wanted Cain or Hamels and missed out. Greinke could probably get 5 years as well anxiety issue or not. Cain and Hamels could end up with 6-7.

[wiumike]

CBA Question. Everything I have seen says the additional penalties will bring an end to over slotting. What if Theo's new plan is to shove the new rules up Selig's giggy and bring 40 million into the draft. They get all of their picks this year, and attempt to overslot every big money high reward player they can find. The penalty for this would be the loss 2 future first round picks and a 100% tax penalty. So what, I love unintended consequences, what if all this does is limit the number of teams to go overslot.

 

Theo said the plan is to pay for future potential, not past performance and has always been on gaming the system. To me, this is the most logical way to go on the offensive. Especially considering other teams will probably have backed off going after overslotted players.

[dew1679666265]

Of the pitchers you mentioned, I think only Cain and Hamels have a realistic shot of getting more than 5 years.

 

I think Greinke very realistically gets more than that. The emotional issues might make the bigger markets (Philly, NY, Boston, Chicago maybe) balk, but he'd be an ideal guy for smaller markets with excess money to pursue looking to splurge (Nats, Blue Jays, Marlins, etc). I think the big market teams will be very aggressive in pursuing Cain and Hamels, if they even hit the market (there's a good chance neither do).

 

None of them is going to get a deal remotely commensurate with the one Pujols got. And I maintain that Pujols is no longer the player he was, or at the very least, he's at the tail end of his elite-level production. You'd give him 10/270 knowing he is 32, in decline (only the severity of that decline is in question) and you'd be getting none of his prime, and you'd do so without significant compunction?

 

I don't think Pujols is in full decline. As I (and others) have pointed out previously, he dropped from his peak years the past couple, but there's been no other clear decline in his numbers. His drop from a 9-WAR player in 2008-9 to a 7-WAR player in 2010 was a drop from his peak to a more sustainable (for him) level. The drop from 2010's 7 WAR to 2011's 5 WAR could be explained in a number of ways other than that his skills are deteriorating: his BABIP dropped 20 points while his LD% held steady; he started out slowly but from the middle of April through the playoffs (about 150 games, I believe) he was much closer to his 2010 numbers; his O-swing% was much higher than ever but his contact rate on those swings held steady, meaning his struggles could be more approach related than deteriorating skills related. There's plenty of reason to believe he could still be the 7-win player he was in 2010 at least for the next year or two before he begins a full (but possibly graceful) decline. I wouldn't be gung-ho in favor of giving Pujols a 10/275 deal and I would have had some hesitation at that price, but I think given the dearth of major league talent in our system, the lack of true impact bats on the horizon, the uniqueness of talent Pujols possesses, and the front offices' ability to fill the organization with good, cheap talent going forward (thus making bad years on the back end much more manageable), that the reward on the front end is worth the risk on the back end.

 

My main point with the pitchers is that they don't have to sign a 10/275 contract to carry similar amounts of risk that Pujols does. These are all pitchers who have logged quite a few innings, will log around 200+ more by the time we might have a chance to sign them, and will be on the wrong side of 30 within 2 years of signing a new deal - there's a ton of risk there. All of them will also be in very high demand next offseason and this year a 32 year old (with much less mileage) CJ Wilson signed a "hometown discount" deal of 5/75 after two elite seasons. 6+ years isn't out of the question with any of them.

[dew1679666265]

EDIT:

 

And knowing there was a good plan B in Fielder?

 

I'm all for signing Prince if the plan is respectability in 2012 and competing in 2013. However, the distance between my ideal contract for him and where I'd stop feeling comfortable with a deal is much, much smaller than it was with Pujols. There's a good chance we're going to get into the area I'm not comfortable with for both and if that's the case, I'd rather take the more complete and better player, even if he is older.

[dew1679666265]

CBA Question. Everything I have seen says the additional penalties will bring an end to over slotting. What if Theo's new plan is to shove the new rules up Selig's giggy and bring 40 million into the draft. They get all of their picks this year, and attempt to overslot every big money high reward player they can find. The penalty for this would be the loss 2 future first round picks and a 100% tax penalty. So what, I love unintended consequences, what if all this does is limit the number of teams to go overslot.

 

Theo said the plan is to pay for future potential, not past performance and has always been on gaming the system. To me, this is the most logical way to go on the offensive. Especially considering other teams will probably have backed off going after overslotted players.

 

Losing multiple first round picks and paying 100% extra is pretty significant - especially considering if we simply compensate by going overslot later in the draft again next year we lose multiple first round picks again. Also, if the plan is full rebuild for 2012 at least, that means we're forfeiting probably a top 5-10 pick. That hurts.

[pccubfan]

Or, Theo and Hoyer are brilliant enough not to get themselves into this situation in the first place, given the current FA options available and the state of the roster.

 

Again, there are no perfect free agents. In your scenarios the Cubs will never sign a free agent. That means you must be willing to wait for three or four years for the Cubs to be competitive.

It should come as no surprise that I have heard this response from a lot of folks around here.

 

And they're all wrong.

 

Admittedly, I haven't read all of your posts, but the only free agent signing I've ever seen you promote was Texeira.

 

That doesn'tmake me think you are a big proponent of free agency.

[XZero771679666304]

Time will tell on Pujols, but my feeling is that many people have stars in their eyes regarding him and don't give due credence to the statistical trend. 2011 looks like a slight outlier, but the trend still remains. He might rebound next year to a 6-7 WAR player, but he may well not. There's reason to think he will, but I think there's just as much reason to think he'll continue to succumb to father time.

 

 

And I might be less intransigent about my unwillingness to go as high as the Angels did if not for the presence of Fielder, who while not as good, is four years younger and figures to carry a significantly lower price tag both in terms of dollars and years.

 

To me, Fielder at 5/150 or 6/175 with a vesting option carries enough less risk than Pujols at 10/275 that I'd overlook the performance gap and let Albert go.

 

 

As far as that group of pitchers go, I don't think you'll see more than 1-2 deals that go beyond five years, and at least a few of them go for less.

[wiumike]

CBA Question. Everything I have seen says the additional penalties will bring an end to over slotting. What if Theo's new plan is to shove the new rules up Selig's giggy and bring 40 million into the draft. They get all of their picks this year, and attempt to overslot every big money high reward player they can find. The penalty for this would be the loss 2 future first round picks and a 100% tax penalty. So what, I love unintended consequences, what if all this does is limit the number of teams to go overslot.

 

Theo said the plan is to pay for future potential, not past performance and has always been on gaming the system. To me, this is the most logical way to go on the offensive. Especially considering other teams will probably have backed off going after overslotted players.

 

Losing multiple first round picks and paying 100% extra is pretty significant - especially considering if we simply compensate by going overslot later in the draft again next year we lose multiple first round picks again. Also, if the plan is full rebuild for 2012 at least, that means we're forfeiting probably a top 5-10 pick. That hurts.

 

I agree on losing that first pick would hurt. But considering the amount of overslotting we pulled of this year, would that have been worth parting with Baez. Especially with the fact even more talent may exist in the later picks as other teams will shy away from any signablity issue as they lose that money in the signing pool. Just trying to think outside the box of draft better...Everyone has that plan, what else could be out there.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I agree on losing that first pick would hurt. But considering the amount of overslotting we pulled of this year, would that have been worth parting with Baez. Especially with the fact even more talent may exist in the later picks as other teams will shy away from any signablity issue as they lose that money in the signing pool. Just trying to think outside the box of draft better...Everyone has that plan, what else could be out there.

 

I wouldn't trade Baez for our crop of Shawn Dunston Jr overslots, no.

[XZero771679666304]

CBA Question. Everything I have seen says the additional penalties will bring an end to over slotting. What if Theo's new plan is to shove the new rules up Selig's giggy and bring 40 million into the draft. They get all of their picks this year, and attempt to overslot every big money high reward player they can find. The penalty for this would be the loss 2 future first round picks and a 100% tax penalty. So what, I love unintended consequences, what if all this does is limit the number of teams to go overslot.

 

Theo said the plan is to pay for future potential, not past performance and has always been on gaming the system. To me, this is the most logical way to go on the offensive. Especially considering other teams will probably have backed off going after overslotted players.

 

Losing multiple first round picks and paying 100% extra is pretty significant - especially considering if we simply compensate by going overslot later in the draft again next year we lose multiple first round picks again. Also, if the plan is full rebuild for 2012 at least, that means we're forfeiting probably a top 5-10 pick. That hurts.

 

I agree on losing that first pick would hurt. But considering the amount of overslotting we pulled of this year, would that have been worth parting with Baez. Especially with the fact even more talent may exist in the later picks as other teams will shy away from any signablity issue as they lose that money in the signing pool. Just trying to think outside the box of draft better...Everyone has that plan, what else could be out there.

 

 

I see what you're saying, but the idea of surrendering a top 10 pick is pretty unpleasant. You might think about such a strategy for a strong class and if the following years draft looked particularly weak (or at least not top heavy), but I'm not sure it's a route I'd want to go.