Wrigley Renovation Thread

[Sammy Sofa]

Not getting Cespedes was just a complete [expletive] up, no way around it. That one hurts so much.

[SouthSideRyan]

I just want Kyle to say who the Cubs would've signed that would've made them good last year since he is positing that 2011 was the last year that the team could have been fixed via free agency (and that they're stuck doing it their way now).

 

Rizzo at his age and salary >>>> prince and pujols

 

Darvish - yes but it's a blind bid and it sucks

 

Cespedes - I have no idea what happened there that kept us from getting him, but yea, him too.

CJ Wilson was another one that was popular last year. He put up the same WAR as Paul Maholm last year.

 

Was Paul Maholm not valuable last year?

 

He was...and our guys got him for 2 years/11.25M while CJ took a hometown discount to get 5/78

 

ETA - I really wanted CJ.

 

I don't think CJ was do-able because of the quickness with which he signed with Anaheim, but my overreaching point is that KingCubs seems to want to play WAR/$ rather than play WAR. Don't tell me that a high payroll doesn't mean anything and then say well we got Maholm much cheaper, so aren't you glad we didn't sign CJ Wilson?

[sneakypower]

managing to sign Cespedes, and Darvish would have surely accelerated the process some but that would be like a 95th percentile performance for a GM

 

Which is what I was expecting when they came on board. I'm not going to be satisfied with an above average performance from our superteam of a front office.

eh, i had meant that in terms of a projection of what you'd expect from Theo/Jed specifically, but it's a nebulous point anyway that i didn't really word all that well

[XZero771679666304]

Not getting Cespedes was just a complete [expletive] up, no way around it. That one hurts so much.

 

Yeah, it does. But it's the only one that really bothers me. Darvish stings a bit too, but to a much lesser extent. We were right there with Cespedes (apparently) and just botched it.

[Guest]

Not getting Cespedes was just a complete [expletive] up, no way around it. That one hurts so much.

 

I just don't really understand what happened, unless the A's told him that he had to take or leave their offer. Why would we bow out where we did?

 

I mean, hindsight makes it much more difficult to understand, I guess...there was still a lot of uncertainty at the time (and I suppose there still is).

[Sammy Sofa]

Not getting Cespedes was just a complete [expletive] up, no way around it. That one hurts so much.

 

Yeah, it does. But it's the only one that really bothers me. Darvish stings a bit too, but to a much lesser extent. We were right there with Cespedes (apparently) and just botched it.

 

The Darvish scenario really doesn't bother me because of the blind bid nonsense. Cespedes...gah, it just makes me mad/sad. Things could easily be VERY different if they had pulled off that one signing.

[Sammy Sofa]

Not getting Cespedes was just a complete [expletive] up, no way around it. That one hurts so much.

 

I just don't really understand what happened, unless the A's told him that he had to take or leave their offer. Why would we bow out where we did?

 

Because they apparently weren't willing to bend on the length of the contract.

[KingCubsFan]

I just want Kyle to say who the Cubs would've signed that would've made them good last year since he is positing that 2011 was the last year that the team could have been fixed via free agency (and that they're stuck doing it their way now).

 

Rizzo at his age and salary >>>> prince and pujols

 

Darvish - yes but it's a blind bid and it sucks

 

Cespedes - I have no idea what happened there that kept us from getting him, but yea, him too.

CJ Wilson was another one that was popular last year. He put up the same WAR as Paul Maholm last year.

 

Was Paul Maholm not valuable last year?

 

He was...and our guys got him for 2 years/11.25M while CJ took a hometown discount to get 5/78

 

ETA - I really wanted CJ.

 

I don't think CJ was do-able because of the quickness with which he signed with Anaheim, but my overreaching point is that KingCubs seems to want to play WAR/$ rather than play WAR. Don't tell me that a high payroll doesn't mean anything and then say well we got Maholm much cheaper, so aren't you glad we didn't sign CJ Wilson?

I wasn't trying to do that. My point was that one of the solutions people were pointing to last year was CJ Wilson. We didn't sign him, and instead signed Paul Maholm. Depending on how much faith you put in WAR, they had virtually the same amount of value last year. So spending an extra $100 million and having CJ Wilson on the team wasn't going to help the Cubs be competitive last year, even if it might have placated those wanting to spend a ton of money in free agency. They were (and are) in too deep of a hole to simply patch up with a few free agent signings.

[sneakypower]

Not getting Cespedes was just a complete [expletive] up, no way around it. That one hurts so much.

 

Yeah, it does. But it's the only one that really bothers me. Darvish stings a bit too, but to a much lesser extent. We were right there with Cespedes (apparently) and just botched it.

 

The Darvish scenario really doesn't bother me because of the blind bid nonsense. Cespedes...gah, it just makes me mad/sad. Things could easily be VERY different if they had pulled off that one signing.

how so?

 

ZiPS projects the guy for 3.2 wins...i'd actually like to know what exactly you see in him that's fostered the strange obsession you have

[Hairyducked Idiot]

just thought i'd let you know, you're being willfully ignorant here

 

Not at all. I'm simply looking at the same information as you in a different way.

 

Payroll does not guarantee success. The correlation is there, but it is not overwhelming. MLB has provided a variety of protections in its CBA, most importantly the six years to free agency, that make developing talent more important than spending money.

 

But if you feel that you haven't developed enough talent, you don't have to choose to pack up and go home. Spending money can be a bridge to the time in the future when you have developed more talent.

 

Yes, the Angels only won 89 games last year and missed the playoffs. The Tigers won 88 and squeaked in. And it was an unusually good year for a couple of really low payroll teams. And even in that unusual year, I think there's a pretty obvious place to draw the line on that graph and which side of that line I want to be on:

 

http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/493/payrollwins3.png

 

I want to be on the side where 6/9 teams on above .500, not the one where with 9/21. (and I'm fairly certain this is using USA Today payroll, which is the one that had the Cubs at like $75 million last year or whatever because it didn't count traded players where we were picking up the tab).

 

 

But money still helps you get better players, and better players still help you win. We have a very recent history that shows us that you can get a couple of playoff appearances out of a spending spree being added on to a bad team.

 

I just want Kyle to say who the Cubs would've signed that would've made them good last year since he is positing that 2011 was the last year that the team could have been fixed via free agency (and that they're stuck doing it their way now).

 

I'll grant I post so many places that I don't always keep track of who I've argued what with, but can't believe you've never seen me do an alternative offseason, or seen me post the reasons I don't like doing them. There's a bunch of small variables that you have to set arbitrarily, and they can get you to pretty much anywhere you want to go. And all that will happen is the next person will say "nuh-uh" to half the variables and claim it all invalid.

 

Darvish would have fit this team's needs so hard it's not funny. Letting Ramirez go was clearly a mistake if all we were going to replace him with was Ian Stewart. Passing on Fielder seems prescient once we later traded for Rizzo, but I wouldn't have minded one bit having Fielder and tarding Cashner for something else or using him out of the pen. What if he's part of a Headley trade, for example? Any number of cheap or expensive relief pitchers to replace Marshall and Samardzija were clearly needed. I wasn't a big Cespedes fan at the time, but clearly he would have fit nicely in our outfield.

 

As awful as the 2011 Cubs were, it's amazing how fast they get better if you add a league-average bullpen, a 3b, an OF and some smart roster decisions on the bench. And then you don't have to employ whatever guys off the street were pitching for us down the stretch.

[Guest]

Not getting Cespedes was just a complete [expletive] up, no way around it. That one hurts so much.

 

Yeah, it does. But it's the only one that really bothers me. Darvish stings a bit too, but to a much lesser extent. We were right there with Cespedes (apparently) and just botched it.

 

The Darvish scenario really doesn't bother me because of the blind bid nonsense. Cespedes...gah, it just makes me mad/sad. Things could easily be VERY different if they had pulled off that one signing.

how so?

 

ZiPS projects the guy for 3.2 wins...i'd actually like to know what exactly you see in him that's fostered the strange obsession you have

 

Just the fact that we'd have another core piece locked in at 27 years old to add to our existing 3-4, I'd imagine.

 

He'd be much more valuable if he actually could play CF.

[Guest]

Maybe it's me subsconsciously not wanting it to hurt as much, but I just do not believe in Cespedes, at least in terms of being a difference maker in the caliber of Darvish, Rizzo, and Fielder types mentioned in this thread.

 

Also, appropos of nothing, Cespedes has a LD% of 0 so far this year, which is hilarious to me considering he has 3 HR.

 

 

In terms of regrets, for me the biggest and simultaneously most out of their hands was Darvish. Then comes some missed trade opportunities like Upton, Bauer, and Delgado(h8 u, Dempster), and then some other FAs like Sanchez, Upton, and Bourn.

[SouthSideRyan]

Not getting Cespedes was just a complete [expletive] up, no way around it. That one hurts so much.

 

Yeah, it does. But it's the only one that really bothers me. Darvish stings a bit too, but to a much lesser extent. We were right there with Cespedes (apparently) and just botched it.

 

The Darvish scenario really doesn't bother me because of the blind bid nonsense. Cespedes...gah, it just makes me mad/sad. Things could easily be VERY different if they had pulled off that one signing.

how so?

 

ZiPS projects the guy for 3.2 wins...i'd actually like to know what exactly you see in him that's fostered the strange obsession you have

 

And now we come back to no one player would have made a difference, so why bother.

[Guest]

Maybe it's me subsconsciously not wanting it to hurt as much, but I just do not believe in Cespedes, at least in terms of being a difference maker in the caliber of Darvish, Rizzo, and Fielder types mentioned in this thread.

 

Also, appropos of nothing, Cespedes has a LD% of 0 so far this year, which is hilarious to me considering he has 3 HR.

 

 

In terms of regrets, for me the biggest and simultaneously most out of their hands was Darvish. Then comes some missed trade opportunities like Upton, Bauer, and Delgado(h8 u, Dempster), and then some other FAs like Sanchez, Upton, and Bourn.

 

Just curious, would you rather have Dempster for Delgado and Maholm for mystery replacement package or Maholm for Vizcaino and Dempster for Villanueva (plus the other pieces involved in both deals, obv)?

 

I feel like we made out like bandits on Maholm and we might not have otherwise matched that overall value from both deals.

[Guest]

And now we come back to no one player would have made a difference, so why bother.

 

I think it's more about how much N&G specifically has lamented Cespedes. If he's a 3 win LF under control for 4 years, why waste so much energy over him and not the host of other guys who could've been added for a similar value?

[Guest]

And now we come back to no one player would have made a difference, so why bother.

 

I think it's more about how much N&G specifically has lamented Cespedes. If he's a 3 win LF under control for 4 years, why waste so much energy over him and not the host of other guys who could've been added for a similar value?

 

His swag level is infinite.

[SouthSideRyan]

And now we come back to no one player would have made a difference, so why bother.

 

I think it's more about how much N&G specifically has lamented Cespedes. If he's a 3 win LF under control for 4 years, why waste so much energy over him and not the host of other guys who could've been added for a similar value?

 

My assumption is because Cespedes was the exact type of player the front office should have been throwing around their money on and they still got beaten for him.

[Guest]

And now we come back to no one player would have made a difference, so why bother.

 

I think it's more about how much N&G specifically has lamented Cespedes. If he's a 3 win LF under control for 4 years, why waste so much energy over him and not the host of other guys who could've been added for a similar value?

 

My assumption is because Cespedes was the exact type of player the front office should have been throwing around their money on and they still got beaten for him.

 

Not at 4/36 and then free agency. Dominican Josh Willingham at a younger age with less performance certainty is an appropriate value there, but so was the real Josh Willingham at 3/21 in the same offseason.

[Guest]

Maybe it's me subsconsciously not wanting it to hurt as much, but I just do not believe in Cespedes, at least in terms of being a difference maker in the caliber of Darvish, Rizzo, and Fielder types mentioned in this thread.

 

Also, appropos of nothing, Cespedes has a LD% of 0 so far this year, which is hilarious to me considering he has 3 HR.

 

 

In terms of regrets, for me the biggest and simultaneously most out of their hands was Darvish. Then comes some missed trade opportunities like Upton, Bauer, and Delgado(h8 u, Dempster), and then some other FAs like Sanchez, Upton, and Bourn.

 

Just curious, would you rather have Dempster for Delgado and Maholm for mystery replacement package or Maholm for Vizcaino and Dempster for Villanueva (plus the other pieces involved in both deals, obv)?

 

I feel like we made out like bandits on Maholm and we might not have otherwise matched that overall value from both deals.

 

I would take Delgado and Maholm in hand and go from there.

[Sammy Sofa]

Not getting Cespedes was just a complete [expletive] up, no way around it. That one hurts so much.

 

Yeah, it does. But it's the only one that really bothers me. Darvish stings a bit too, but to a much lesser extent. We were right there with Cespedes (apparently) and just botched it.

 

The Darvish scenario really doesn't bother me because of the blind bid nonsense. Cespedes...gah, it just makes me mad/sad. Things could easily be VERY different if they had pulled off that one signing.

how so?

 

ZiPS projects the guy for 3.2 wins...i'd actually like to know what exactly you see in him that's fostered the strange obsession you have

 

I thought it would have been obvious that I wasn't talking about Cespedes like he was superhuman dynamo that would single handedly carried the team to victory. I was talking in terms of how I think the approach to building the team for this season would have gone.

[davell]

Its not like we haven't gone down these conversations a ton, but IF we did add both Darvish and Cespedes, even kept Aramis as well. We're not a playoff team in 2012. And it very likely would have seen us keep Marshall, because we would have wanted more sure things in the pen. Would Shark have even been given a true shot at the rotation? Because you would have had Dempster, Darvish, Volstad(Z deal happens anyway), possibly still Maholm, Wells, and Garza. You would have had Byrd as your 4th OFer(think DeJesus was going to be a Cub anyway) along with Reed, Baker, LaHair, and probably a vet backup C. In the end, it wasn't a playoff team, you'd have had a payroll of 140+, and you'd have entered the following(2012) offseason around 110 mill, needing a C, a SP or 2, some bullpen help, and some bench help. You wouldn't have had a protected pick in the draft this year and you wouldn't have the returns from the Marshall, Dempster, or Maholm deals. In my mind, unless you're able to afford taking our payroll up to, or above 160, you're not turning the roster I just gave, into a perennial playoff force. Look, it sucks we may head into 2014 with a lesser shot at making the playoffs than if we had gone the other route, but I'd gladly lay money those odds are reversed from 2015 forward, with the path they've chosen.

[sneakypower]

I thought it would have been obvious that I wasn't talking about Cespedes like he was superhuman dynamo that would single handedly carried the team to victory. I was talking in terms of how I think the approach to building the team for this season would have gone.

why do you think it would have gone any differently?

[Sammy Sofa]

I thought it would have been obvious that I wasn't talking about Cespedes like he was superhuman dynamo that would single handedly carried the team to victory. I was talking in terms of how I think the approach to building the team for this season would have gone.

why do you think it would have gone any differently?

 

Maybe they go after Bourn or B.J. Upton harder. Maybe Justin Upton is willing to waive his NTC to come here. Maybe the FO and the owner approach is more of a willingness to build both for now and later than just later. He fills a couple of key spots on the team and puts you in a better position to construct a team in the short run. I think there's more motivation to construct a better team than what they've gone with this year.

[WrigleyField 22]

Any chance we can split the huge side discussion and leave this thread just related to Wrigley Field?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tangled Up in Plaid]

Any chance we can split the huge side discussion and leave this thread just related to Wrigley Field?

 

Seconded.