Star players and how they are acquired

[Guest]

Based upon your numbers there are roughly three FA signed each season that are 5+ WAR players, assuming that each remains a 5+ WAR player throughout that timespan. Is it really that difficult to determine who the top three or four free agents are and concentrate on signing one of them? It doesn't seem to be all that risky.

 

It's less than 3 players each offseason, and among those players are peak seasons from Andres Torres and Kelly Johnson, and reclamation projects like Jayson Werth and Chris Carpenter. Plus, the Cubs needed more than one of those players to be serious competitors in 2012.

[Tracer Bullet]

Hamilton was homegrown by the Rangers?

 

Didn't read the defined terms, I see.

[Sammy Sofa]

Theo isn't responsible for winning this year. If we all can't agree with that, we should have hired some schmuck and continued to tread water forever. Theo inherited a mess.

 

That is such nonsense. He's not responsible for turning this team into a juggernaut this year, but they should win more than they are in-line to win. He inherited a flawed organization. But the pieces were out there to turn this team into at least a respectable club this season without destroying any future hope for greater success.

 

If winning 60 instead of 80 games thus year makes the team significantly better in 2013-14, it's stupid not to do it.

 

Are you seriously saying that it would be easier to move from a 60 win team to contender than it would be an 80 win team to contender in one offseason?

 

Yeah, no offense, gr, but that seems incredibly backwards.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Hamilton was homegrown by the Rangers?

 

Didn't read the defined terms, I see.

He wasn't traded to the Rangers after reaching the majors?

[Guest]

Hamilton was homegrown by the Rangers?

 

I thought for a moment by listing him as traded since he technically was, but thought that was ideologically the better fit. Again, the difference in homegrown and traded wasn't really the focus, it was the lack of FA signings showing up on that list.

 

EDIT: I was mixed up and somehow mentally skipped over Hamilton's time in Cincinnati. Hamilton should be listed as Traded.

[Tracer Bullet]

Hamilton was homegrown by the Rangers?

 

Didn't read the defined terms, I see.

He wasn't traded to the Rangers after reaching the majors?

 

Wasn't he still a rookie his first year with the rangers? I don't know how TT counts players with less than a year of ML service time. The overall point is he wasn't acquired as a FA.

 

ETA: he had more time in the majors in Cincy than I thought. My bad.

[bukie]

Hamilton was homegrown by the Rangers?

 

Didn't read the defined terms, I see.

He wasn't traded to the Rangers after reaching the majors?

 

Wasn't he still a rookie his first year with the rangers? I don't know how TT counts players with less than a year of ML service time. The overall point is he wasn't acquired as a FA.

He had a successful year with the Reds and then was traded to the Rangers for Volquez.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Hamilton was homegrown by the Rangers?

 

Didn't read the defined terms, I see.

He wasn't traded to the Rangers after reaching the majors?

 

Wasn't he still a rookie his first year with the rangers? I don't know how TT counts players with less than a year of ML service time. The overall point is he wasn't acquired as a FA.

 

ETA: he had more time in the majors in Cincy than I thought. My bad.

Regardless, you owe me an apology.

[treebird]

Hamilton was homegrown by the Rangers?

 

Didn't read the defined terms, I see.

He wasn't traded to the Rangers after reaching the majors?

 

Wasn't he still a rookie his first year with the rangers? I don't know how TT counts players with less than a year of ML service time. The overall point is he wasn't acquired as a FA.

 

ETA: he had more time in the majors in Cincy than I thought. My bad.

 

Don't know anything about baseball, I see.

 

(burrrrrrrrrn)

[Little Slide Rooter]

Hamilton was homegrown by the Rangers?

 

I thought for a moment by listing him as traded since he technically was, but thought that was ideologically the better fit. Again, the difference in homegrown and traded wasn't really the focus, it was the lack of FA signings showing up on that list.

 

I'd expect you of all people to remember that he was a Cubs top prospect that Jim Hendry gave up on an sent to the Reds for nothing.

[Tracer Bullet]

Hamilton was homegrown by the Rangers?

 

Didn't read the defined terms, I see.

He wasn't traded to the Rangers after reaching the majors?

 

Wasn't he still a rookie his first year with the rangers? I don't know how TT counts players with less than a year of ML service time. The overall point is he wasn't acquired as a FA.

 

ETA: he had more time in the majors in Cincy than I thought. My bad.

 

Don't know anything about baseball, I see.

 

(burrrrrrrrrn)

Hey, I'm on TT's side of this one. You really want to take the opposing view?

[Tracer Bullet]

Hamilton was homegrown by the Rangers?

 

Didn't read the defined terms, I see.

He wasn't traded to the Rangers after reaching the majors?

 

Wasn't he still a rookie his first year with the rangers? I don't know how TT counts players with less than a year of ML service time. The overall point is he wasn't acquired as a FA.

 

ETA: he had more time in the majors in Cincy than I thought. My bad.

Regardless, you owe me an apology.

 

You're probably right.

[SouthSideRyan]

Hamilton was homegrown by the Rangers?

 

Didn't read the defined terms, I see.

He wasn't traded to the Rangers after reaching the majors?

 

Wasn't he still a rookie his first year with the rangers? I don't know how TT counts players with less than a year of ML service time. The overall point is he wasn't acquired as a FA.

 

ETA: he had more time in the majors in Cincy than I thought. My bad.

 

Don't know anything about baseball, I see.

 

(burrrrrrrrrn)

 

He was drawing triangles at the time.

[Tracer Bullet]

Hamilton was homegrown by the Rangers?

 

I thought for a moment by listing him as traded since he technically was, but thought that was ideologically the better fit. Again, the difference in homegrown and traded wasn't really the focus, it was the lack of FA signings showing up on that list.

 

I'd expect you of all people to remember that he was a Cubs top prospect that Jim Hendry gave up on an sent to the Reds for nothing.

 

You must be [expletive] joking me.

 

Bob - if not for your post, this wouldn't have happened. You owe everyone an apology.

[Tracer Bullet]

 

Don't know anything about baseball, I see.

 

(burrrrrrrrrn)

 

He was drawing triangles at the time.

 

And getting paid handsomely to so it. Ain't life in the 1% grand?

[davearm2]

Theo isn't responsible for winning this year. If we all can't agree with that, we should have hired some schmuck and continued to tread water forever. Theo inherited a mess.

 

That is such nonsense. He's not responsible for turning this team into a juggernaut this year, but they should win more than they are in-line to win. He inherited a flawed organization. But the pieces were out there to turn this team into at least a respectable club this season without destroying any future hope for greater success.

 

If winning 60 instead of 80 games thus year makes the team significantly better in 2013-14, it's stupid not to do it.

 

Are you seriously saying that it could be easier to move from a 60 win team to contender than it would be an 80 win team to contender in one offseason?

I don't want to put words in MR's mouth, but if the Cubs were to trade all of the remaining guys with expiring contracts (Dempster, Byrd, etc.) for top prospects that will spend 2012 in AAA and 2013 in MLB, then it's pretty easy to get to the conclusion that the team is worse off in 2012 but better off in 2013.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

I'll never apologize for WSR.

[treebird]

Hey, I'm on TT's side of this one. You really want to take the opposing view?

 

i don't mind being on the other side of him if his plan means i don't bother watching cubs games after may until 2015

[treebird]

Theo isn't responsible for winning this year. If we all can't agree with that, we should have hired some schmuck and continued to tread water forever. Theo inherited a mess.

 

That is such nonsense. He's not responsible for turning this team into a juggernaut this year, but they should win more than they are in-line to win. He inherited a flawed organization. But the pieces were out there to turn this team into at least a respectable club this season without destroying any future hope for greater success.

 

If winning 60 instead of 80 games thus year makes the team significantly better in 2013-14, it's stupid not to do it.

 

Are you seriously saying that it could be easier to move from a 60 win team to contender than it would be an 80 win team to contender in one offseason?

I don't want to put words in MR's mouth, but if the Cubs were to trade all of the remaining guys with expiring contracts (Dempster, Byrd, etc.) for top prospects that will spend 2012 in AAA and 2013 in MLB, then it's pretty easy to get to the conclusion that the team is worse off in 2012 but better off in 2013.

 

those are going to be some really good trades.

[Tracer Bullet]

Hey, I'm on TT's side of this one. You really want to take the opposing view?

 

i don't mind being on the other side of him if his plan means i don't bother watching cubs games after may until 2015

 

You'd be wise to read the posts yourself rather than accept jersey's interpretation.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Hey, I'm on TT's side of this one. You really want to take the opposing view?

 

i don't mind being on the other side of him if his plan means i don't bother watching cubs games after may until 2015

 

You'd be wise to read the posts yourself rather than accept jersey's interpretation.

This sounds like a trap. Don't do it.

[pccubfan]

Based upon your numbers there are roughly three FA signed each season that are 5+ WAR players, assuming that each remains a 5+ WAR player throughout that timespan. Is it really that difficult to determine who the top three or four free agents are and concentrate on signing one of them? It doesn't seem to be all that risky.

 

It's less than 3 players each offseason, and among those players are peak seasons from Andres Torres, Kelly Johnson, and reclamation projects like Jayson Werth and Chris Carpenter. Plus, the Cubs needed more than one of those players to be serious competitors in 2012.

 

Seriously, lets let 2012 go. Signing one of the best free agents available this offseason could absolutely have helped in competing in 2013 and beyond. That's where my frustration comes from.

 

I didn't understand where your numbers were coming from, as I thought you were only using free agents signed in the last three years. Sorry. Are the chances of signing a free agent that puts up a 5+ WAR really that much less than obtaining somebody in the draft? If I were to guess, trades for soon to be major league stars is the most efficient way to obtain stars. Which suggests that a Garza trade would make sense.

[davearm2]

 

If winning 60 instead of 80 games thus year makes the team significantly better in 2013-14, it's stupid not to do it.

 

Are you seriously saying that it could be easier to move from a 60 win team to contender than it would be an 80 win team to contender in one offseason?

I don't want to put words in MR's mouth, but if the Cubs were to trade all of the remaining guys with expiring contracts (Dempster, Byrd, etc.) for top prospects that will spend 2012 in AAA and 2013 in MLB, then it's pretty easy to get to the conclusion that the team is worse off in 2012 but better off in 2013.

 

those are going to be some really good trades.

They don't have to be that good. The guys with expiring contracts will give the Cubs a combined zero WAR in 2013, after they're gone.

[Tracer Bullet]

Theo isn't responsible for winning this year. If we all can't agree with that, we should have hired some schmuck and continued to tread water forever. Theo inherited a mess.

 

That is such nonsense. He's not responsible for turning this team into a juggernaut this year, but they should win more than they are in-line to win. He inherited a flawed organization. But the pieces were out there to turn this team into at least a respectable club this season without destroying any future hope for greater success.

 

If winning 60 instead of 80 games thus year makes the team significantly better in 2013-14, it's stupid not to do it.

 

Are you seriously saying that it could be easier to move from a 60 win team to contender than it would be an 80 win team to contender in one offseason?

I don't want to put words in MR's mouth, but if the Cubs were to trade all of the remaining guys with expiring contracts (Dempster, Byrd, etc.) for top prospects that will spend 2012 in AAA and 2013 in MLB, then it's pretty easy to get to the conclusion that the team is worse off in 2012 but better off in 2013.

 

Yeah 60 and 80 were numbers picked from thin air to prove a point (sort of like TT's comment about 75 wins in 3 years). But yes, I have no problem trading guys like Marshall, Byrd, Z, etc, for young MLB talent or near-MLB talent. We weren't winning the WS in 2012, so I don't care how close we come to missing the playoffs.

[Sammy Sofa]

Based upon your numbers there are roughly three FA signed each season that are 5+ WAR players, assuming that each remains a 5+ WAR player throughout that timespan. Is it really that difficult to determine who the top three or four free agents are and concentrate on signing one of them? It doesn't seem to be all that risky.

 

It's less than 3 players each offseason, and among those players are peak seasons from Andres Torres, Kelly Johnson, and reclamation projects like Jayson Werth and Chris Carpenter. Plus, the Cubs needed more than one of those players to be serious competitors in 2012.

 

Seriously, lets let 2012 go. Signing one of the best free agents available this offseason could absolutely have helped in competing in 2013 and beyond. That's where my frustration comes from.

 

I didn't understand where your numbers were coming from, as I thought you were only using free agents signed in the last three years. Sorry. Are the chances of signing a free agent that puts up a 5+ WAR really that much less than obtaining somebody in the draft? If I were to guess, trades for soon to be major league stars is the most efficient way to obtain stars. Which suggests that a Garza trade would make sense.

 

Yeah, ditto.