Star players and how they are acquired

[KingCubsFan]

 

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).

So basically not signing Fielder/Pujols (not sure that they should always be grouped together, as one is much better than other) moves us from a really good division favorite to crappy? This isn't basketball. One player won't make that much of a difference.

[jersey cubs fan]

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.

 

He's the easiest, and still allows you to make those other moves you are hoping for.

[SouthSideRyan]

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

 

Overbay was around replacement level last year, I suppose that's his new level of ability? Of course we go by the standard rule: veteran has bad year, DOOOOOOOM; guy under 27(or 3 bad years), breakout potential.

Edited January 5, 2012 by SouthSideRyan

[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.

 

And the other rotation holes?

 

I think that depends in part on what happens with Cashner and McNutt this season. If things break bad on those two and trade opportunities don't present themselves, well, like I said it's a deep FA class.

 

 

There will be many variables in play this season, like hoe BJax progresses, how Cash and McNutt pitch, how Volstad and Wood pitch, how Stewart and DeJesus hit, how Castillo does (and whether that influences a Soto trade), and numerous other factors.

 

And then there's the fact we're not even through this offseason.

[pccubfan]

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.

 

He's the easiest, and still allows you to make those other moves you are hoping for.

 

Or wait and make pitching moves next offseason.

[Rob]

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.

 

He's the easiest, and still allows you to make those other moves you are hoping for.

 

Are you just pretending the Cubs don't have a budget or something? Spend $25 mil a season on Fielder, and that's $25 mil the Cubs cannot spend on guys like Jackson and Kuroda.

[jersey cubs fan]

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.

 

He's the easiest, and still allows you to make those other moves you are hoping for.

 

Are you just pretending the Cubs don't have a budget or something? Spend $25 mil a season on Fielder, and that's $25 mil the Cubs cannot spend on guys like Jackson and Kuroda.

 

Obviously they have the budget of the A's now and we're just working our way down.

[bukie]

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

 

Overbay was around replacement level last year, I suppose that's his new level of ability? Of course we go by the standard rule veteran has bad year, DOOOOOOOM, guy under 27, breakout potential.

Is this the part where you create a thin strawman so you can argue with yourself for a page? Lyle Overbay is 35, was below replacement level last year and most of it was hitting. He doesn't hit for power and doesn't field the position adequately anymore. He's not even a short-term option. He's a worse option than Jeff Baker.

[davearm2]

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.

Your notion that a huge dollar signing is essentially all upside and no risk is just mind-boggling.

 

When the day comes that Prince Fielder is making significantly more money than his production is worth, he will of course be damaging his team's ability to contend, for the simple reason that those dollars could have been better spent, and generated more wins.

 

The very same logic extends to all elite free agents. Obviously not all elite free agents have the same risk profile, or the same likelihood of reaching the point of becoming burdensome.

[SouthSideRyan]

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

 

Overbay was around replacement level last year, I suppose that's his new level of ability? Of course we go by the standard rule veteran has bad year, DOOOOOOOM, guy under 27, breakout potential.

Is this the part where you create a thin strawman so you can argue with yourself for a page? Lyle Overbay is 35, was below replacement level last year and most of it was hitting. He doesn't hit for power and doesn't field the position adequately anymore. He's not even a short-term option. He's a worse option than Jeff Baker.

 

So Overbay fell off a cliff last year at the age of 34. Luckily Carlos Pena will only be 34 next year.

[bukie]

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

 

Overbay was around replacement level last year, I suppose that's his new level of ability? Of course we go by the standard rule veteran has bad year, DOOOOOOOM, guy under 27, breakout potential.

Is this the part where you create a thin strawman so you can argue with yourself for a page? Lyle Overbay is 35, was below replacement level last year and most of it was hitting. He doesn't hit for power and doesn't field the position adequately anymore. He's not even a short-term option. He's a worse option than Jeff Baker.

 

So Overbay fell off a cliff last year at the age of 34. Luckily Carlos Pena will only be 34 next year.

Again, because every 34 year old is identical. Because Lyle Overbay has been a bad fielder for several years, it means Carlos Pena will magically become that at age 34. And since Lyle Overbay can't hit for any power, Carlos Pena will suddenly be rendered unable to hit home runs.

 

It's a stupid comparison, because they're completely different players at this stage of their careers. Neither is a long term option. At least Pena has short term value in his power and fielding.

[Rob]

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

 

Overbay was around replacement level last year, I suppose that's his new level of ability? Of course we go by the standard rule: veteran has bad year, DOOOOOOOM; guy under 27(or 3 bad years), breakout potential.

 

Carlos Pena has posted a WAR figure of 6.0, 3.7, 3.0, 1.1, and 2.6 over the last five years (since he came back to the majors with the Rays).

 

Lyle Overbay has posted figures of -0.1, 1.8, 2.4, 1.3, and -0.6 over that same time frame.

 

If you want to nitpick over me calling a 1 WAR player a replacement level guy, have at it. But pretending these two are even close to the same player is ridiculous.

 

Did you have any thoughts as to my suggestion of other ways to spend the money? I'd love to hear them.

[SouthSideRyan]

I was using bWAR because fangraphs tends to slow up my work computer, but bWAR certainly tells a different story, with a 1.5 WAR difference between the 2 leading into last year (even using your timeframe which, obviously, is ridiculously favorable to Pena with a 4.5 advantage in 2007, which really has little predictive value at this point)

 

I want to spend money on a real 1B since we have none, and the other options suck out loud. I don't see Jackson settling for 3/36. I don't see the point in signing Kuroda for 2/25 when we're not going to try for the first year. We're actively trying to lose this season and I'm [expletive] pissed about it.

[mookie]

Actively trying to lose?!? Seriously? Just stop.

[XZero771679666304]

 

I don't see Jackson settling for 3/36.

 

Probably true.

 

I don't see the point in signing Kuroda for 2/25 when we're not going to try for the first year.

 

I agree.

 

We're actively trying to lose this season and I'm [expletive] pissed about it.

 

Hyperbolic BS.

[jersey cubs fan]

Actively trying to lose?!? Seriously? Just stop.

 

They aren't actively trying to win yet, that's for certain.

[jersey cubs fan]

We're actively trying to lose this season and I'm [expletive] pissed about it.

 

Hyperbolic BS.

 

How? It's a crappy team that had addressable needs that haven't been addressed. Nothing done to date suggests any interest in trying in 2012. Unless you think getting rid of Zambrano's attitude will magically make players play better (which I'm pretty sure some people think).

[Exile on Waveland]

 

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).

So basically not signing Fielder/Pujols (not sure that they should always be grouped together, as one is much better than other) moves us from a really good division favorite to crappy? This isn't basketball. One player won't make that much of a difference.

 

First of all, I did not say that one player made the Cubs a "really good division favorite." I said "really competitive in the [division]." Those are different sentiments. I said division favorites in 2013 also required some other good moves; just not necessarily expensive moves.

 

Second, do I really need to say that Pujols is a lot better than Fielder? Of course he is. They're grouped together because they were both available at a position of need and are both big upgrades -- yes, even though one is better than the other. The sky is also blue.

 

Third, yes, one player at a desperate position of need could very easily be the difference between not-so-good and division contender in a crappy division. If this was the AL East, one player would not matter that much. But it's not. It's a division that wasn't that great to begin with and has now lost one of the greatest players of all time (Pujols) and, presumably, one of the better first basemen/power hitters in the game (Fielder). I don't love using WAR like this, but Pujols has averaged over seven wins per season and, excepting his first two years, Fielder has averaged 4.62 wins.* (I think those seven and 4.62 wins likely underestimate the value of adding a power hitter to the middle of a lineup that doesn't have one, though I'm sure most will disagree with that.)

 

*Yes, this is rough and ignores expected production next year.

[sneakypower]

I was using bWAR because fangraphs tends to slow up my work computer, but bWAR certainly tells a different story, with a 1.5 WAR difference between the 2 leading into last year (even using your timeframe which, obviously, is ridiculously favorable to Pena with a 4.5 advantage in 2007, which really has little predictive value at this point)

 

I want to spend money on a real 1B since we have none, and the other options suck out loud. I don't see Jackson settling for 3/36. I don't see the point in signing Kuroda for 2/25 when we're not going to try for the first year. We're actively trying to lose this season and I'm [expletive] pissed about it.

i don't really know why; it'd make you feel better if we unintentionally had a lousy season?

 

you can't break an omelette without breaking some eggs, any good cook will tell you that

[jersey cubs fan]

you can't break an omelette without breaking some eggs, any good cook will tell you that

 

Luckily we're not talking about a diner, because you can build a quality organization in the future while still trying in the present. There is no need to punt 2012 no matter how hard davearm works to convince you people otherwise.

[XZero771679666304]

Actively trying to lose?!? Seriously? Just stop.

 

They aren't actively trying to win yet, that's for certain.

 

They're not placing 2012 ahead of the long term, which is the only thing I think you can say with any degree of certainty right now.

 

Saying the FO is actively trying to lose in 2012 is ludicrous. If a person is to the point where they believe that, it's time to take a step back and do some breathing exercises, or maybe try some meditation.

 

There are a few people here acting hysterical and drawing conclusions with no regard for context because the FO hasn't "swung the dick" in the first couple months.

[davearm2]

We're actively trying to lose this season and I'm [expletive] pissed about it.

 

Hyperbolic BS.

 

How? It's a crappy team that had addressable needs that haven't been addressed. Nothing done to date suggests any interest in trying in 2012. Unless you think getting rid of Zambrano's attitude will magically make players play better (which I'm pretty sure some people think).

I doubt anyone believes in magic.

 

But I bet a lot of people believe the intangible factors that surround a team (chemistry, clubhouse harmony, being a good teammate, etc.) you dismiss, may in fact matter.

[pccubfan]

you can't break an omelette without breaking some eggs, any good cook will tell you that

 

Luckily we're not talking about a diner, because you can build a quality organization in the future while still trying in the present. There is no need to punt 2012 no matter how hard davearm works to convince you people otherwise.

 

I seem to recall a lot of excitement about this offseason on this site. Money off the books and the Cubs would be players in the big free agent sweepstakes. I am getting old so maybe my memory isn't very good. Am I remembering wrong?

[jersey cubs fan]

Actively trying to lose?!? Seriously? Just stop.

 

They aren't actively trying to win yet, that's for certain.

 

They're not placing 2012 ahead of the long term, which is the only thing I think you can say with any degree of certainty right now.

 

Saying the FO is actively trying to lose in 2012 is ludicrous.

 

They have not yet done anything to make the team better in 2012. That can be said with certainty. Not doing anything to improve a bad team make not be actively trying to lose, but if you aren't doing anything to try and get better, it's the same damn thing. There is nothing ludicrous about being upset at what they are currently putting out there for 2012.

[jersey cubs fan]

you can't break an omelette without breaking some eggs, any good cook will tell you that

 

Luckily we're not talking about a diner, because you can build a quality organization in the future while still trying in the present. There is no need to punt 2012 no matter how hard davearm works to convince you people otherwise.

 

I seem to recall a lot of excitement about this offseason on this site. Money off the books and the Cubs would be players in the big free agent sweepstakes. I am getting old so maybe my memory isn't very good. Am I remembering wrong?

 

One by one the zombies have been convincing themselves that spending money on baseball players is foolish.