Star players and how they are acquired

[Tracer Bullet]

Maybe we should go back to TT's first post and remind ourselves that very few stars are signed as FAs and many (most?) big FA signings turn out poorly.

 

To clarify, I'm not against signing any FAs. I'm against the notion that the only way or even the best way to fix this team is to spend tons on FA. Even the Yankees (the big swinging dicks on the NE) have more regrettable contracts than good ones.

 

WELL THEN WHY DON'T YOU BOTHER READING WHAT PEOPLE ARE WRITING?

 

The future will be handled primarily via trades and development from within. Right now, the only way to help 2012, and to some degree 2013, is via free agency. The Cubs have money and their have been players available at positions where they have needs.

 

Nobody is saying sign free agents and then all our problems will be solved. Nobody is saying the only way to fix this organization is by signing free agents this offseason. Nobody is saying the best way to fix this organization is by spending tons on free agents.

 

I am saying the only way to make a significant improvement in 2012 without damaging the future is via free agency.

 

I agree that FA is the only way to help 2012. But since we couldn't get the guys we needed, not wasting money on 2012 that will be wasted on 2013 and 2014 makes sense.

 

The guys signed this year may not produce enough in 2013 and 2014 to justify the $ they'd require. If so, wait and spend that money to extend a real star acquired via trade.

[pccubfan]

Maybe we should go back to TT's first post and remind ourselves that very few stars are signed as FAs and many (most?) big FA signings turn out poorly.

 

n/m

Edited January 5, 2012 by pccubsfan

[Tracer Bullet]

My lord. You guys are so impatient that if the cubs don't sign every FA you want, you're just going to have little tantrums.

 

You are a horrible reader.

 

Actually I'm a great reader. And based on your performance in this thread, you're the last person who should be judging such things.

 

I'm sure you're an excellent driver as well.

 

I don't know. I haven't had regular, independent, objective reviews of those skills that consistently show the same thing.

[Sammy Sofa]

Noooooooooooooooooope.

 

I don't want measured. I want the Cubs to be the big swinging dicks of the Midwest.

 

 

Measure now doesn't mean measured later. Pick your battles.

 

The Cubs have money, but simply spending like crazy just to make it rain (see a declining, 32 year old Albert @ 10/265) is just idiotic.

 

Now if someone else nabs Prince for less than 8-10 years, I'll start to wonder what people are thinking.

 

Measured is fine in complimentary moves. Measured as the focus sucks.

[XZero771679666304]

You guys are too intimidated by big, swinging dicks. We need to embrace the big, swinging dicks.

 

Maybe when we get that TV deal.

 

Till then, practicing a small degree of restraint is probably still in order.

[Tracer Bullet]

Maybe we should go back to TT's first post and remind ourselves that very few stars are signed as FAs and many (most?) big FA signings turn out poorly.

 

To clarify, I'm not against signing any FAs. I'm against the notion that the only way or even the best way to fix this team is to spend tons on FA. Even the Yankees (the big swinging dicks on the NE) have more regrettable contracts than good ones.

 

I don't think anyone here is saying it's the only or best way to fix the team. It's a way to help fix a team or strengthen it, and as it stands right now the Cubs seem to be shying completely away from it. Shutting out a significant tool to help build and better your team isn't fun and doesn't seem very smart.

 

And why does it matter if the Yankees are overpaying? I'd love for the Cubs to be in that type of position where it doesn't matter. It sucks that they aren't.

 

You don't know what we've done or what it shows for the future. You're just freaking out.

 

I want the cubs to be the red sox, not the yankees. I don't know what the next several years holds for NY, but I don't think it's going to be the late 90s now that George is gone.

[SouthSideRyan]

There's a method here. And I like it.

 

I don't doubt that there is a method here that will payoff in the future. I just have a problem with ignoring 2012 when it was possible to make the team competitive without ruining their chances in the future.

 

What's competitive? 80 wins? Shooting for 85 and hoping you get lucky and make the playoffs? You loved that so much with Hendry, I'm surprised to see you advocate for it now.

 

There is nothing wrong with that when it is used as a stepping stone. It becomes a problem when year after year you hope things go your way to accomplish this.

 

There is something wrong with it when not trading assets that have no value after 2012 hurts the team in later years. Keeping mediocre players to hope for 85 wins in 2012 makes no sense when those players can't help the team in 2013 when there's a better chance at winning.

 

The return for those mediocre players probably won't help the team in 2013 and beyond either.

[Tracer Bullet]

There's a method here. And I like it.

 

I don't doubt that there is a method here that will payoff in the future. I just have a problem with ignoring 2012 when it was possible to make the team competitive without ruining their chances in the future.

 

What's competitive? 80 wins? Shooting for 85 and hoping you get lucky and make the playoffs? You loved that so much with Hendry, I'm surprised to see you advocate for it now.

 

There is nothing wrong with that when it is used as a stepping stone. It becomes a problem when year after year you hope things go your way to accomplish this.

 

There is something wrong with it when not trading assets that have no value after 2012 hurts the team in later years. Keeping mediocre players to hope for 85 wins in 2012 makes no sense when those players can't help the team in 2013 when there's a better chance at winning.

 

The return for those mediocre players probably won't help the team in 2013 and beyond either.

 

Why?

[SouthSideRyan]

And I want a billion dollars.

 

If you had it would you promise to spend some of it? If so I've got a purchase I'd like to talk to you about.

[Tracer Bullet]

And I want a billion dollars.

 

If you had it would you promise to spend some of it? If so I've got a purchase I'd like to talk to you about.

 

Yes

[Little Slide Rooter]

Homegrown - 79 - 63%

Traded - 30 - 24%

Free Agent - 17 - 13%

 

Does this take into account each team and how they acquired their star players? Smaller market teams like the Brewers, Rays, and Royals are more likely to acquire more of their stars from within and have a higher risk of losing them as FA when the time comes or trading them to bigger market teams when the team control is near an end. Bigger market teams are more likely to get theirs as free agents or trades, often from those small market teams looking to get something in return for their homegrown stars before losing them as FA. However, The Red Sox, Rangers, and Phillies, all big market and 3 of baseballs best the past few years have a pretty even mix of all 3 methods of acquisition.

[RynoRules]

You call my post garbage and end yours when a sentence that is of no value whatsoever? My word. No one is arguing that jersey and you know it.

 

80-85 wins and not fielding a team with a good chance at winning deep in the playoffs is of no value when you could win fewer games and acquire assets for later years when the chances of being very good are higher.

 

The cubs weren't going to be good on 2012. Why does it matter how not good?

 

He can make as many marginal upgrade trades as he damn well pleases, I don't give a crap about that. I want a freaking free agent or three to actually have an impact on their chances in 2012. It costs nothing but money and does nothing to damage their ability to contend in 2014 and beyond.

 

That just isnt't true, and I know that you know it.

 

I don't blame you for wanting to win now (that is, 2012). I'm on the other side of that fence - I can hold off a year of it means we are building something sustainable. I'm giving Thoyer a year or two to show me that their way is the right way.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm not sure what the point of this thread was to begin with. It seems to strongly suggest that teams should shy away from free agency. But I'm not sure if something like Adrian Gonzalez being acquired via trade in advance of free agency and then signed is a good example of how you should shy away from free agency. It seems to me that if you appropriately differentiate between homegrown prospects and prospects other teams have traded for, and then add free agency and trading for established players already, you are talking about a nearly 50/50 ratio of productive players coming from your own system and productive players being acquired from other systems. Obviously you want to try your best to draft and develop your own, that is something that takes time and will hopefully start sometime before the next draft. It costs money to acquire free agents, it costs money and assets to acquire major league impact players under control. Most teams don't let their most productive hitters get to free agency. They either give them extensions or trade them to another team who signs them to an extension. It's completely disingenuous to say that the lack of free agents producing big numbers means free agents aren't worth anything, because it's very rare to have those guys available.

[SouthSideRyan]

The return for those mediocre players probably won't help the team in 2013 and beyond either.

 

Why?

 

Because they're mediocre players?

[RynoRules]

I'm not sure what the point of this thread was to begin with. It seems to strongly suggest that teams should shy away from free agency. But I'm not sure if something like Adrian Gonzalez being acquired via trade in advance of free agency and then signed is a good example of how you should shy away from free agency. It seems to me that if you appropriately differentiate between homegrown prospects and prospects other teams have traded for, and then add free agency and trading for established players already, you are talking about a nearly 50/50 ratio of productive players coming from your own system and productive players being acquired from other systems. Obviously you want to try your best to draft and develop your own, that is something that takes time and will hopefully start sometime before the next draft. It costs money to acquire free agents, it costs money and assets to acquire major league impact players under control. Most teams don't let their most productive hitters get to free agency. They either give them extensions or trade them to another team who signs them to an extension. It's completely disingenuous to say that the lack of free agents producing big numbers means free agents aren't worth anything, because it's very rare to have those guys available.

 

That point makes sense. In other words, its a problem if you are waiting for impact players to become available via free agency.

[SouthSideRyan]

You call my post garbage and end yours when a sentence that is of no value whatsoever? My word. No one is arguing that jersey and you know it.

 

80-85 wins and not fielding a team with a good chance at winning deep in the playoffs is of no value when you could win fewer games and acquire assets for later years when the chances of being very good are higher.

 

The cubs weren't going to be good on 2012. Why does it matter how not good?

 

He can make as many marginal upgrade trades as he damn well pleases, I don't give a crap about that. I want a freaking free agent or three to actually have an impact on their chances in 2012. It costs nothing but money and does nothing to damage their ability to contend in 2014 and beyond.

 

That just isnt't true, and I know that you know it.

 

I don't blame you for wanting to win now (that is, 2012). I'm on the other side of that fence - I can hold off a year of it means we are building something sustainable. I'm giving Thoyer a year or two to show me that their way is the right way.

 

How does it cost more than money? He's not talking about signing somebody that will wind up blocking a top prospect. He's also not talking about how we need to win now. He's saying "hey, maybe we should try and add really good players now, that way we'll have them for 2013 beyond too!" Reclamation projects and pre-arb guys aren't the only ones under control for more than a year.

[Sammy Sofa]

You call my post garbage and end yours when a sentence that is of no value whatsoever? My word. No one is arguing that jersey and you know it.

 

80-85 wins and not fielding a team with a good chance at winning deep in the playoffs is of no value when you could win fewer games and acquire assets for later years when the chances of being very good are higher.

 

The cubs weren't going to be good on 2012. Why does it matter how not good?

 

He can make as many marginal upgrade trades as he damn well pleases, I don't give a crap about that. I want a freaking free agent or three to actually have an impact on their chances in 2012. It costs nothing but money and does nothing to damage their ability to contend in 2014 and beyond.

 

That just isnt't true, and I know that you know it.

 

I don't blame you for wanting to win now (that is, 2012). I'm on the other side of that fence - I can hold off a year of it means we are building something sustainable. I'm giving Thoyer a year or two to show me that their way is the right way.

 

How does it cost more than money? He's not talking about signing somebody that will wind up blocking a top prospect. He's also not talking about how we need to win now. He's saying "hey, maybe we should try and add really good players now, that way we'll have them for 2013 beyond too!" Reclamation projects and pre-arb guys aren't the only ones under control for more than a year.

 

Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuup.

[Sammy Sofa]

The return for those mediocre players probably won't help the team in 2013 and beyond either.

 

Why?

 

Because they're mediocre players?

 

http://www.yyyup.com/

[biittner77]

I was watching American Pickers and the tall guy has a saying "The time to buy something cool is when you see it." I realize that signing Fielder may not put the Cubs over the top right away but when will the Cubs have the chance again to get that talented a player without having to do anything but spend money?

[Tracer Bullet]

The return for those mediocre players probably won't help the team in 2013 and beyond either.

 

Why?

 

Because they're mediocre players?

 

Trade a mediocre player whose value ends after 2012 for a slightly better overall asset that's 2012 value is lower but has value beyond that. Turn those players into assets that help in 2013. Again, not rocket science, but giving up players of no value beyond this year can help beyond this year.

[Tracer Bullet]

I'm not sure what the point of this thread was to begin with. It seems to strongly suggest that teams should shy away from free agency. But I'm not sure if something like Adrian Gonzalez being acquired via trade in advance of free agency and then signed is a good example of how you should shy away from free agency. It seems to me that if you appropriately differentiate between homegrown prospects and prospects other teams have traded for, and then add free agency and trading for established players already, you are talking about a nearly 50/50 ratio of productive players coming from your own system and productive players being acquired from other systems. Obviously you want to try your best to draft and develop your own, that is something that takes time and will hopefully start sometime before the next draft. It costs money to acquire free agents, it costs money and assets to acquire major league impact players under control. Most teams don't let their most productive hitters get to free agency. They either give them extensions or trade them to another team who signs them to an extension. It's completely disingenuous to say that the lack of free agents producing big numbers means free agents aren't worth anything, because it's very rare to have those guys available.

 

That point makes sense. In other words, its a problem if you are waiting for impact players to become available via free agency.

 

I'm not sure jersey realizes he made an excellent point against using FA to improve the team.

[Rob]

I supported overpaying for Pujols and Darvish. I still want the Cubs to sign Cespedes and Soler. I'd also love for the Cubs to pick up one of Edwin Jackson, Hiroki Kuroda, or Roy Oswalt. There are guys out there like BJ Upton whom I would love to see the Cubs trade for an extend to a long term deal. I am not afraid of spending money or making long term commitments, even on risky guys.

 

But I simply do not understand this bizarre sentiment that the Cubs need to be going all in on guys like Prince Fielder. Yeah, he's a great player. But he's not elite. And he's extremely risky. And he's likely to command the 3rd highest annual salary in baseball.

 

He's a round peg people are trying to jam through a square hole.

[XZero771679666304]

You call my post garbage and end yours when a sentence that is of no value whatsoever? My word. No one is arguing that jersey and you know it.

 

80-85 wins and not fielding a team with a good chance at winning deep in the playoffs is of no value when you could win fewer games and acquire assets for later years when the chances of being very good are higher.

 

The cubs weren't going to be good on 2012. Why does it matter how not good?

 

He can make as many marginal upgrade trades as he damn well pleases, I don't give a crap about that. I want a freaking free agent or three to actually have an impact on their chances in 2012. It costs nothing but money and does nothing to damage their ability to contend in 2014 and beyond.

 

That just isnt't true, and I know that you know it.

 

I don't blame you for wanting to win now (that is, 2012). I'm on the other side of that fence - I can hold off a year of it means we are building something sustainable. I'm giving Thoyer a year or two to show me that their way is the right way.

 

How does it cost more than money? He's not talking about signing somebody that will wind up blocking a top prospect. He's also not talking about how we need to win now. He's saying "hey, maybe we should try and add really good players now, that way we'll have them for 2013 beyond too!" Reclamation projects and pre-arb guys aren't the only ones under control for more than a year.

 

That is absolutely true. The notion being propagated that adding big name FA and building for the future are mutually exclusive modes of operation is utterly ridiculous.

 

However, I think there is some merit in the "paying for future production, not past performance" idea that Theo espouses. I think the guys that best fit that mold are still on the market (sans Darvish). And foolishly or not, I still think that we're major players for Fielder, Cespedes and Soler.

[RynoRules]

I'm not sure what the point of this thread was to begin with. It seems to strongly suggest that teams should shy away from free agency. But I'm not sure if something like Adrian Gonzalez being acquired via trade in advance of free agency and then signed is a good example of how you should shy away from free agency. It seems to me that if you appropriately differentiate between homegrown prospects and prospects other teams have traded for, and then add free agency and trading for established players already, you are talking about a nearly 50/50 ratio of productive players coming from your own system and productive players being acquired from other systems. Obviously you want to try your best to draft and develop your own, that is something that takes time and will hopefully start sometime before the next draft. It costs money to acquire free agents, it costs money and assets to acquire major league impact players under control. Most teams don't let their most productive hitters get to free agency. They either give them extensions or trade them to another team who signs them to an extension. It's completely disingenuous to say that the lack of free agents producing big numbers means free agents aren't worth anything, because it's very rare to have those guys available.

 

That point makes sense. In other words, its a problem if you are waiting for impact players to become available via free agency.

 

I'm not sure jersey realizes he made an excellent point against using FA to improve the team.

 

I don't think that is what he meant - he meant once they do become available, if you have the means, you go after them.

[questionmarkgrace]

Look at the up coming free agent classes. First base is a black hole for years to come. Our options are fielder this year at 27, Votto maybe in 14' at 30 or lyle overbay types. Third base is similarly bad David wright next year (2 out of his last 3 years have been clunkers) or a 34 year old Kevin Youkilis who has back problems. Outfield Cespedes looks nice this year, upton in '14 and a very questionable Josh Hamilton at age 32.

 

We are a lot better off with Cespedes and Fielder because free agency will suck for the next couple years and those guys have a chance to be good together for 5-8 years. All of our prospects are super far away they need time to develop and we are much less likely to trade them with theo and jed at the helm. so we need to get better via free agency. It baffles me that some of you guys are suggesting that avoiding free agency equates to building a better foundation. And thats just not true. Signing a free agent in no way inhibits developing prospects especially now more than ever with the new rules in place for signing amateur talent. There's no reason that we cant draft better, acquire buy low guys like theo has done thus far, and sign top free agents.