Star players and how they are acquired

[XZero771679666304]

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.

 

Not a chance.

[dew1679666265]

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.

 

Prince at $30 million - $4 million AAV more than Pujols - carries less risk? I realize there's a 5 year difference in deal length, but as you think I'm starry eyed over Pujols, I think you might be too easily disregarding Prince's poor defense compared to Albert's good defense and the propensity for overweight players to decline faster and earlier. There's no way I'd even consider $30 million a year for Prince and $25 million a year is stretching it quite a bit.

 

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.

 

I think Cain and Hamels are likely to get 6+ years and Greinke might get that much. The problem with Greinke is that you have the normal high risk of injury and ineffectiveness that naturally comes with pitchers, plus the emotional issues that may crop up in a big market like Chicago. A 5 year deal for Greinke may be as risky as a 6+ year deal for Cain and Hamels.

 

I wouldn't classify any of the other pitchers I listed as likely to be elite going forward, except maybe Anibal Sanchez, so I hesitate to include them in the discussion going forward. I simply included them to be as comprehensive as possible and to include some guys who've shown the ability to be elite.

[XZero771679666304]

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.

 

Prince at $30 million - $4 million AAV more than Pujols - carries less risk? I realize there's a 5 year difference in deal length, but as you think I'm starry eyed over Pujols, I think you might be too easily disregarding Prince's poor defense compared to Albert's good defense and the propensity for overweight players to decline faster and earlier. There's no way I'd even consider $30 million a year for Prince and $25 million a year is stretching it quite a bit.

 

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.

 

I think Cain and Hamels are likely to get 6+ years and Greinke might get that much. The problem with Greinke is that you have the normal high risk of injury and ineffectiveness that naturally comes with pitchers, plus the emotional issues that may crop up in a big market like Chicago. A 5 year deal for Greinke may be as risky as a 6+ year deal for Cain and Hamels.

 

I wouldn't classify any of the other pitchers I listed as likely to be elite going forward, except maybe Anibal Sanchez, so I hesitate to include them in the discussion going forward. I simply included them to be as comprehensive as possible and to include some guys who've shown the ability to be elite.

 

Do'h I meant 5/125 or 6/150. Brain fart.

 

 

I think 22.5 per could get Prince, but 25 could sway he and Boras to give on the years.

Edited January 6, 2012 by XZero77

[dew1679666265]

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.

 

It's an idea worth considering to be sure, but I think losing multiple first round picks every year hurts too much for the plan to work in practice.

[fan_in_China]

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.

+1 and I think your team would have to be doing well enough in the standings, so as to be sure that you weren't going to lose a top pick. I could see the Yankees or the Phils doing that, but not the Cubs. Instead, if the cubs wanted to improve the system, they could just pick up a ton of IFAs between now and July (especially Soler). Sure the IFA market is not as efficient, but it is way more efficient than dropping $40 mil on a single draft.

[XZero771679666304]

Moreover, I think Theo and Jed have acknowledged that they'll not be able to operate that way, so I doubt we'll see it happen.

 

And sacrificing first round picks in favor of late round gambles isn't really a sound strategy for adding more elite prospects to the system, which is what we are short on.

[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.

 

 

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.

+1 and I think your team would have to be doing well enough in the standings, so as to be sure that you weren't going to lose a top pick. I could see the Yankees or the Phils doing that, but not the Cubs. Instead, if the cubs wanted to improve the system, they could just pick up a ton of IFAs between now and July (especially Soler). Sure the IFA market is not as efficient, but it is way more efficient than dropping $40 mil on a single draft.

 

I get what you are saying. But we can still obtain some of the supplemental picks through trade. But that is a mid 30's pick. That takes it back it being a strategy once they picking in the 20-30 range.

[dew1679666265]

Do'h I meant 5/125 or 6/150. Brain fart.

 

That's kind of what I thought you meant, but wasn't sure. 6/150 for Prince makes me feel about the same as 10/275 for Pujols made me feel - it's as far as I'd be willing to go and I'd feel uncomfortable paying that much. Given the Cubs' payroll now, the upside it has going forward (especially with a TV deal possible), and the FO's ability to bring in good, cheap talent to offset big money contracts, if I'm going to be uncomfortable I'd rather get the better, more complete player.

[SouthSideRyan]

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.

 

And there certainly won't be the same level of talent to overslot, at least until it's established that this is going to be a strategy utilized by multiple teams. No kid is going to hold out for absurd cash to come in the 7th round until they know some team is actually crazy enough to do it.

[Little Slide Rooter]

 

And sacrificing first round picks in favor of late round gambles isn't really a sound strategy for adding more elite prospects to the system, which is what we are short on.

 

That was Wilkens thing and I wouldnt expect to see anymore Tyler Colvins and Hayden Simpsons drafted in the 1st round and if he has a problem with that perhaps he should start prepping his resume.

[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.

 

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.

Which free agent signings have you seen me oppose?

 

Pujols and Fielder (albeit for different reasons). Any others?

 

Surely you're not forming such a universal opinion based on me not liking two guys.

[XZero771679666304]

Do'h I meant 5/125 or 6/150. Brain fart.

 

That's kind of what I thought you meant, but wasn't sure. 6/150 for Prince makes me feel about the same as 10/275 for Pujols made me feel - it's as far as I'd be willing to go and I'd feel uncomfortable paying that much. Given the Cubs' payroll now, the upside it has going forward (especially with a TV deal possible), and the FO's ability to bring in good, cheap talent to offset big money contracts, if I'm going to be uncomfortable I'd rather get the better, more complete player.

 

I know I'm taking the under on Albert, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him hovering at or just above replacement level for at least 3-4 years on the back end.

 

That said, I don't either one of us is going to sway the other, and the point is pretty moot right now. But it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

[Rob]

 

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.

 

Ha. If that's the worst you've gotten at NSBB in a while you're having an excellent start to the new year.

 

I think I would've gone to around 6/135 on Darvish, posting fee included. And that's what I anticipate it'll end up costing the Rangers, roughly.

 

And yeah, I'm still hopeful on both Cespedes and Soler. Moreso on Soler.

[Rob]

I admit I can't remember the details on the new CBA right now, but I recall seeing it postulated elsewhere that it might make sense to go severely over slot in the draft one year and then going over slot in IFA the next and continuing that pattern. Just throwing that out there.

[davell]

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.

I've looked for loopholes and have even brought this up before. But, the problem is this: firstly, we'd be losing a pretty high pick next year, possibly the year after as well. Secondly, it's likely we'd piss off other teams by doing this as well. Could even make things difficult in trying to make trades. Thirdly, I think this new structure will keep guys from falling too far. I think that we'll see the top 10 rounds go pretty close to form, with maybe some guys falling outside the top 10 rounds. The question becomes this: Are those guys worth paying double for, along with the lost picks? My honest guess is probably not. I think that we'll spend 5% over our allotment, it's only a 75% tax on the overage and no loss of picks. Could be an extra 500,000 or so. But, the loss of picks and having that money taken out of the next year's budget as well, will probably scare teams out of trying something like that. On the other hand, I could see us and probably some other teams as well, taking the max penalty on IFA's, depending on how good the class is. If it's a really good group, the penalty is a 100% tax and the following year not having the ability to spend over 250,000 on a single player. I think teams will take THAT penalty and just sign a bunch of lower priced guys every other yeat, quantity over quality one year, then the opposite the next one.

[fan_in_China]

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.

In addition to what Davell said, I decided to go a different route, and retrospectively try out this idea. I decided to go back and see what players the Cubs would have chosen if the they had just picked the most expensive player available (that actually sigend) in 2008 and 2009. Now there are a couple of problems: one being that the most expensive isn't always the highest regarded in our scouts eyes, and two being that I would assume we would be able to sign a few guys that didn't end up signing. I didn't really put much time in making sure I got the right #'s, so I might be off a bit, but I think you will get the idea.

 

2008 --------------------Most Expensive -------------------- Actual

1st -------------------- Josh Fields -------------------- Cashner

Sup ------------------- Kyle Lobstein -------------------- Flaherty

2nd ------------------- Ryan Westmoreland ------------------ Shafer

3rd ------------------- Tim Melville --------------------- Carpenter

4th ------------------- Brett Hunter --------------------- Cerda

5th ------------------- Robbie Grosssman -------------------- Bristow

 

2009

1st -------------------- Wil Myers -------------------- Brett Jackson

2nd -------------------- Daniel Fields -------------------- LeMahieu

3rd -------------------- Max Stassi -------------------- Kirk

4th ----------------- Zack Von Rosenburg ---------------- Rusin

5th -------------------- Colten Cain -------------------- Darvill

6th ------------------- Mike Ohlman -------------------- Raley

7th --------------------Cameron Coffey --------------- Springfield

8th ----------------------- Bryan Mitchell ----------------- Whitnack

9th ---------------------- Brandon Jacobs --------------- Richard Jones

10th -------------------- Graham Stoneburner -------------Joseph Thomas

 

I would probably trade all of the names on the actual draft list together for Wil Myers (it would be close). Brandon Jacobs would have also been a nice grab. Altogether though, I think this shows that it isn't worth $20 mil extra and losing a 1st rounder or 2, even in these relatively decent drafts. 2012 is not suppose to be a great draft.

[SouthSideRyan]

The issue with that analysis is that the same caliber of guys aren't going to be available in those rounds because of the restrictions. It's different holding out and letting people know you need X dollars to sign when you know overslot signing is normal. When you have a new CBA with funky rules, and have no track record to speak of for how teams deal with it, it's too risky.

[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.

Which free agent signings have you seen me oppose?

 

Pujols and Fielder (albeit for different reasons). Any others?

 

Surely you're not forming such a universal opinion based on me not liking two guys.

 

You were specifically asked in the Pujols thread which offensive free agents you would have been comfortable signing. Your answer was Teixera and Gonzalez (who never made it to free agency so he doens't count). That's one guy in four years.

 

I have gained the impression that it is going to be pretty tough to meet all of the conditions you set forth in order to sign a bat. I certainly don't see anyone on the list of potential free agents available in 2013 that will meet your terms.

[davearm2]

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.

Which free agent signings have you seen me oppose?

 

Pujols and Fielder (albeit for different reasons). Any others?

 

Surely you're not forming such a universal opinion based on me not liking two guys.

 

You were specifically asked in the Pujols thread which offensive free agents you would have been comfortable signing. Your answer was Teixera and Gonzalez (who never made it to free agency so he doens't count). That's one guy in four years.

Yep you nailed it. There's only been one FA in the last 4 years that I would have been comfortable signing. :lol:

[Ding Dong Johnson]

:lol:

[SouthSideRyan]

HA HA HA HA HA HA

[pccubfan]

You were specifically asked in the Pujols thread which offensive free agents you would have been comfortable signing. Your answer was Teixera and Gonzalez (who never made it to free agency so he doens't count). That's one guy in four years.

Yep you nailed it. There's only been one FA in the last 4 years that I would have been comfortable signing. :lol:

 

Whatever. You know in what context you gave that response. If you want to twist it to get a laugh, have at it.

[davearm2]

You were specifically asked in the Pujols thread which offensive free agents you would have been comfortable signing. Your answer was Teixera and Gonzalez (who never made it to free agency so he doens't count). That's one guy in four years.

Yep you nailed it. There's only been one FA in the last 4 years that I would have been comfortable signing. :lol:

 

Whatever. You know in what context you gave that response. If you want to twist it to get a laugh, have at it.

The context was, I didn't like Fielder or Pujols, so I gave some recent examples of big-ticket 1Bs that I would have been comfortable signing.

 

The ginormous leap you're making deserves a laugh.

[CincyCubsFan]

You were specifically asked in the Pujols thread which offensive free agents you would have been comfortable signing. Your answer was Teixera and Gonzalez (who never made it to free agency so he doens't count). That's one guy in four years.

Yep you nailed it. There's only been one FA in the last 4 years that I would have been comfortable signing. :lol:

 

Whatever. You know in what context you gave that response. If you want to twist it to get a laugh, have at it.

The context was, I didn't like Fielder or Pujols, so I gave some recent examples of big-ticket 1Bs that I would have been comfortable signing.

 

The ginormous leap you're making deserves a laugh.

 

Anyone that isn't a 7-year old girl that uses this word should be banned from the forum forever.

[pccubfan]

You were specifically asked in the Pujols thread which offensive free agents you would have been comfortable signing. Your answer was Teixera and Gonzalez (who never made it to free agency so he doens't count). That's one guy in four years.

Yep you nailed it. There's only been one FA in the last 4 years that I would have been comfortable signing. :lol:

 

Whatever. You know in what context you gave that response. If you want to twist it to get a laugh, have at it.

The context was, I didn't like Fielder or Pujols, so I gave some recent examples of big-ticket 1Bs that I would have been comfortable signing.

 

The ginormous leap you're making deserves a laugh.

 

Sorry. I didn't understand that you were strictly talking 1B. I thought you were saying out of all the top offensive free agents that had been available recently, Teixera was the only one you would have signed. My mistake.