Star players and how they are acquired

[mookie]

Excellent post TT.

 

The off season isn't even close to over, this team has strengthened their rotation, and added some intriguing offensive pieces. I am not saying they are going to be world beaters, but with the possible addition of an extra wild card spot it is easier to make the playoffs than ever before.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

added some intriguing offensive pieces

Who? Also keep in mind they lost their 2 most productive hitters from last year's team.

[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.

 

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.

 

You're probably right. But his statement is accurate. The best players in their primes are rarely FAs bc the team that has them wants to extend them or trade them.

[mookie]

added some intriguing offensive pieces

Who? Also keep in mind they lost their 2 most productive hitters from last year's team.

 

Keep in mind? Ok. Of course I am referencing Stewart and DeJesus.

[Tracer Bullet]

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.

 

So we shouldn't look to FA as the best or only source to improve. Maybe we should acquire assets we can trade for 2013-14.

[XZero771679666304]

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.

 

Admittedly I'm still at bit befuddled as to why some people are bemoaning not signing Pujols at the terms the Angels gave him. I really believe he's only got 3-4 years of 4-5 WAR production left in him. At 6-7 years I'm very interested because his early production will offset the last 3-4 years, but at 10 I'm firmly out. A 27-year old Pujols? Sure. But an already declining 32 year old Pujols? Not so much.

 

I think Fielder at 5-7 years with vesting options makes a lot more sense. But like you I'd absolutely balk at 8-10.

 

And I don't suffer from any Soriano-related trauma. Soriano was an awfully risky signing because he was 31 and so much of his perceived value was tied to his legs.

 

That doesn't apply to the guys we're talking about, but that doesn't mean going "all in" on any of them is necessarily a good idea.

[Guest]

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.

 

Are you kidding me with that garbage?

 

80-85 while in the process of restructuring the organization is a perfectly respectable season. My problem with Hendry is that 81 was the average over a decade.

 

80-85 three years into a rebuilding wouldn't be the least bit impressive.

 

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?

What assets for the future have been acquired?

[jersey cubs fan]

You're probably right. But his statement is accurate. The best players in their primes are rarely FAs bc the team that has them wants to extend them or trade them.

 

Yes, it's rare for guys like Pujols, Fielder, Wilson and Darvish to all be available to the highest bidder in the same offseason. That was the point of striking while there was a chance, because those guys would fit into this team so well, and there is no guarantee you'll get a better option in 2-3 years. A lack of impact free agents becoming available is hardly an excuse to steer clear of impact free agents when they do become available.

 

I just don't understand this obsession with having the most efficient roster. If Hoyer and his boys are any good at their job they will have plenty of young prospects to exploit on the cheap for several years, you don't have to suck on you way to getting there.

[Guest]

Wood, Volstad, Stewart, Sappelt, and Torreyes

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Wood, Volstad, Stewart, Sappelt, and Torreyes

 

With ... 22 years of MLB control between them? I think that's right. That's quite a bit of cheap, future production, and outside of Torreyes these aren't just prospects. These are young MLBers entering their prime years with (with the exception of Stewart) good statistical reasons to think they may be undervalued.

[CincyCubsFan]

You're probably right. But his statement is accurate. The best players in their primes are rarely FAs bc the team that has them wants to extend them or trade them.

 

Yes, it's rare for guys like Pujols, Fielder, Wilson and Darvish to all be available to the highest bidder in the same offseason. That was the point of striking while there was a chance, because those guys would fit into this team so well, and there is no guarantee you'll get a better option in 2-3 years. A lack of impact free agents becoming available is hardly an excuse to steer clear of impact free agents when they do become available.

 

I just don't understand this obsession with having the most efficient roster. If Hoyer and his boys are any good at their job they will have plenty of young prospects to exploit on the cheap for several years, you don't have to suck on you way to getting there.

 

 

You didn't hear? Inexpensive, mediocre players under team control are the new "versitile middle-infielders" or "left-handed leadoff hitters" of regimes past.

[Exile on Waveland]

You're probably right. But his statement is accurate. The best players in their primes are rarely FAs bc the team that has them wants to extend them or trade them.

 

Yes, it's rare for guys like Pujols, Fielder, Wilson and Darvish to all be available to the highest bidder in the same offseason. That was the point of striking while there was a chance, because those guys would fit into this team so well, and there is no guarantee you'll get a better option in 2-3 years. A lack of impact free agents becoming available is hardly an excuse to steer clear of impact free agents when they do become available.

 

I just don't understand this obsession with having the most efficient roster. If Hoyer and his boys are any good at their job they will have plenty of young prospects to exploit on the cheap for several years, you don't have to suck on you way to getting there.

 

This isn't necessarily in response to your post; I just quoted you because I wanted to incorporate most of your post.

 

My complaint is not against anything the Cubs have done this year. It's against what they have not done (and what they're almost certainly not going to do). I don't think a spending spree was necessary to compete in 2013. Pujols or Fielder this year and one of the stud free agent pitchers next year. So, for 2013 you already have:

 

C - Soto

1B - Pujols/Fielder

2B - Barney

3B - Stewart if he rebounds, otherwise ?

SS - Castro

LF - Soriano

CF - Jackson?

RF - DeJesus

 

1 - FA

2 - Garza

3 - Wood

4/5 - Volstad/Wells/Shark/Cashner/etc

 

I think without any more tinkering that team is really competitive in the Central in 2013. With a few more clever moves like Wood -- which the current front office should be able to accomplish -- I think you could easily have the division favorites. One free agent signing per year for two years is not exactly a spending spree -- or swinging your junk around -- and I think you already have a good team. It's pretty frustrating because 2012 is going to stink without some miracle and I think the same thing can be said for 2013 (probably).

[Tracer Bullet]

You're probably right. But his statement is accurate. The best players in their primes are rarely FAs bc the team that has them wants to extend them or trade them.

 

Yes, it's rare for guys like Pujols, Fielder, Wilson and Darvish to all be available to the highest bidder in the same offseason. That was the point of striking while there was a chance, because those guys would fit into this team so well, and there is no guarantee you'll get a better option in 2-3 years. A lack of impact free agents becoming available is hardly an excuse to steer clear of impact free agents when they do become available.

 

I just don't understand this obsession with having the most efficient roster. If Hoyer and his boys are any good at their job they will have plenty of young prospects to exploit on the cheap for several years, you don't have to suck on you way to getting there.

 

You want Pujols contract? Wilson didn't want to sign here - nothing we can so. Darvish I would have liked, but who knows what we actually bid. We may still sign fielder, but I doubt it if it costs what I think it will. Once you miss out on Wilson and esp Darvish, spending for 2012 doesn't make much sense.

[JoshiQ]

You're probably right. But his statement is accurate. The best players in their primes are rarely FAs bc the team that has them wants to extend them or trade them.

 

Yes, it's rare for guys like Pujols, Fielder, Wilson and Darvish to all be available to the highest bidder in the same offseason. That was the point of striking while there was a chance, because those guys would fit into this team so well, and there is no guarantee you'll get a better option in 2-3 years. A lack of impact free agents becoming available is hardly an excuse to steer clear of impact free agents when they do become available.

 

I just don't understand this obsession with having the most efficient roster. If Hoyer and his boys are any good at their job they will have plenty of young prospects to exploit on the cheap for several years, you don't have to suck on you way to getting there.

 

You want Pujols contract? Wilson didn't want to sign here - nothing we can so. Darvish I would have liked, but who knows what we actually bid. We may still sign fielder, but I doubt it if it costs what I think it will. Once you miss out on Wilson and esp Darvish, spending for 2012 doesn't make much sense.

 

Who do you see as our 1B in 2013? Or 2014?

[Rob]

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.

.

 

1.) That's not true. There are mid tier options like Carlos Pena out there.

 

2.) Even if it were, the whole point of this thread is to illustrate that FA isn't the only way to build a club. Did you ever notice the insane number of available 1B on the trade market?

 

Logan Morrison

Kendrys Morales

Anthony Rizzo

Justin Smoak

Ike Davis

Kyle Blanks

Gaby Sanchez

 

Those are just a sampling of some guys that could fill the void at 1B. There's also plenty of options out there like Carlos Lee and Adam LaRoche who can be had for nothing, hold down the fort for a year or two and provide average production. Or if you want to get a little risky you can always go with a reclamation project with upside like Chris Davis.

 

There's about 50 options that fall somewhere in between Fielder, Votto, and Lyle Overbay. Let's not resort to absurdities.

[jersey cubs fan]

2.) Even if it were, the whole point of this thread is to illustrate that FA isn't the only way to build a club.

 

Which is a really silly point since nobody was arguing otherwise.

[JoshiQ]

2.) Even if it were, the whole point of this thread is to illustrate that FA isn't the only way to build a club.

 

Which is a really silly point since nobody was arguing otherwise.

 

Since the Cubs should be one of the wealthiest teams in baseball, it would be nice to assume that they could sign any free agents they want, build from within, and trade players here and there to fit their needs.

 

Crazy talk.

[SouthSideRyan]

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.

 

Who do you think you're going to get in return for Marlon Byrd? A Robinson Lopez clone?

 

The only way Dempster gets anything worth caring about is if you keep him til the deadline and he proves last year was an aberration.

[SouthSideRyan]

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.

.

 

1.) That's not true. There are mid tier options like Carlos Pena out there.

 

2.) Even if it were, the whole point of this thread is to illustrate that FA isn't the only way to build a club. Did you ever notice the insane number of available 1B on the trade market?

 

Logan Morrison

Kendrys Morales

Anthony Rizzo

Justin Smoak

Ike Davis

Kyle Blanks

Gaby Sanchez

 

Those are just a sampling of some guys that could fill the void at 1B. There's also plenty of options out there like Carlos Lee and Adam LaRoche who can be had for nothing, hold down the fort for a year or two and provide average production. Or if you want to get a little risky you can always go with a reclamation project with upside like Chris Davis.

 

There's about 50 options that fall somewhere in between Fielder, Votto, and Lyle Overbay. Let's not resort to absurdities.

 

1. How is Carlos Pena not a Lyle Overbay type?

 

2. So giving up our precious few prospects for a young 1B with good potential.

OR

Sign some veteran stopgap who isn't very good

OR

Fill yet another position with a reclamation project.

 

Where do you plan on spending actual money?

[ConstableRabbit]

The Taco Bell across from Wrigley

[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.

 

Admittedly I'm still at bit befuddled as to why some people are bemoaning not signing Pujols at the terms the Angels gave him. I really believe he's only got 3-4 years of 4-5 WAR production left in him. At 6-7 years I'm very interested because his early production will offset the last 3-4 years, but at 10 I'm firmly out. A 27-year old Pujols? Sure. But an already declining 32 year old Pujols? Not so much.

 

I think Fielder at 5-7 years with vesting options makes a lot more sense. But like you I'd absolutely balk at 8-10.

 

And I don't suffer from any Soriano-related trauma. Soriano was an awfully risky signing because he was 31 and so much of his perceived value was tied to his legs.

 

That doesn't apply to the guys we're talking about, but that doesn't mean going "all in" on any of them is necessarily a good idea.

 

I'm not bemoaning the loss of Pujols at that price. Would I have paid it? Maybe. It was somewhere in that grey zone of "more than I'm comfortable with, but not so much I feel like I can say no." But I'm also a believer that last year was an aberration rather than a trend. I'm looking for a bounce back to a 7+ WAR guy for the next couple years before the decline gets under way in earnest.

[XZero771679666304]

Failing a Fielder signing, I think you deal Garza for a package that includes a strong 1B prospect and attempt to address the rotation hole via the 2013 FA class, which is pretty deep in SP.

[SouthSideRyan]

Failing a Fielder signing, I think you deal Garza for a package that includes a strong 1B prospect and attempt to address the rotation hole via the 2013 FA class, which is pretty deep in SP.

 

And the other rotation holes?

[CincyCubsFan]

Failing a Fielder signing, I think you deal Garza for a package that includes a strong 1B prospect and attempt to address the rotation hole via the 2013 FA class, which is pretty deep in SP.

 

And the other rotation holes?

 

Don't forget the left field and third base holes.

[Rob]

 

1. How is Carlos Pena not a Lyle Overbay type?

 

Because Carlos Pena is an above average 1B option, whereas Lyle Overbay comes in around replacement level?

 

2. So giving up our precious few prospects for a young 1B with good potential.

OR

Sign some veteran stopgap who isn't very good

OR

Fill yet another position with a reclamation project.

 

Where do you plan on spending actual money?

 

Before the Z trade, my suggestion was to spend the $25 mil annually we could have spent on Fielder and instead hand it out to Edwin Jackson (3/36 or so) and Hiroki Kuroda (2/25). Then ship off a package either of Z/Cashner/good prospect or Wells/Cashner/mildly intriguing prospect for a high upside 1B like Rizzo.

 

Fielder is probably worth about 3-4 WAR more than Rizzo next season, but Jackson/Kuroda is probably 3-4 WAR better than our 4/5 starters projected to be. And we'd have had additional upside and long-term financial flexibility without a major change in production in the short term.

 

Volstad being in the mix changes things up a bit, but the general idea remains the same. There are plenty of ways to spend money and improve the team. Fielder isn't the only option to make large improvements this offseason.