Any chance we'll be good THIS year?

[Guest]

Teams that won at least 6 more games than the Cubs did last year:

 

Washington

Cleveland

Chicago AL

New York NL

 

I know that October 2009 was 30 months ago so it's difficult to keep a frame of reference, but it's really not very difficult to put together a team that's at least a standard deviation better than the 2011 Cubs. Especially when they've made completely certain to avoid the whole "One third of our games were started by Lopez/Davis/Coleman/Russell/Ortiz" insanity.

 

I've said at least once that this is not how I would've gone about things, but it's not difficult to see the plan. They've made certain that the team is better than last year, and they took chances on several guys who can be assets for several years so that they aren't unsustainably chasing wins in free agency in future seasons. I'll buy that they didn't maximize their chance to compete in 2012, but to say they're tanking is a bit silly.

[KingCubsFan]

With even a half-hearted effort, they could have found better position players in a few spots for 2012. They are tanking this season in the truest sense of the word.

 

There are positive aspects to the tanking, so I choose to focus on them, but that's still what this is.

Yeah, I didn't really have a problem with it. I've always advocated going after guys like Ian Stewart and Chris Volstad, so if they end up horrible I won't be too angry. To me, this path is better than repeating history and coming up with a patchwork of veterans to stretch to 85 wins, which realistically is all we could have done without severely hampering Epstein's long-term vision.

 

There is no repeating history. The recent history has been disapointing because their GM took a haphazard and archaic approaching to maintaining the system. There is no reason why they couldn't have done more in 2012 and still have accomplished plenty of long-term visioneering.

 

The media was all too willing to embrace the tanking of this season which just made it all that much more easy for the organization to choose that way.

So overpaying for veterans in free agency or trade, blocking young players from getting a chance to contribute, and hoping for the best in order to win a crappy division isn't a repeat of what this organization has largely done for the past 20 years? I must have been watching a different team.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

So overpaying for veterans in free agency or trade, blocking young players from getting a chance to contribute, and hoping for the best in order to win a crappy division isn't a repeat of what this organization has largely done for the past 20 years? I must have been watching a different team.

 

That's certainly a distortion of the problems with the Cubs for the last 20 years, which weren't even that bad of a 20 years.

 

I can't think of too many examples of overpaying, besides the obvious one.

 

I can't really think of too many worthwhile young players who got blocked.

 

And it ignores the biggest problem of all: drafting.

[jersey cubs fan]

I've said at least once that this is not how I would've gone about things, but it's not difficult to see the plan.

 

Nobody said it's difficult to see the plan. The plan is plainly obvious. Unfortunately the media and fans didn't give a crap about 2012, in fact many/most openly pleaded for them to completely blow it up and only worry about 2-4 years from now, so they completely relieved any pressure on management to try in 2012. But the future is a long time from now and it would have been nice if they tried now as well.

[jersey cubs fan]

I can't really think of any worthwhile young player that got inordinately blocked from contributing in the recent generation of Cubs teams. Soto was blocked momentarily, but that one changed in a hurry.

 

The problem was a lack of worthwhile young players, not an unwillingness to use them.

[KingCubsFan]

So overpaying for veterans in free agency or trade, blocking young players from getting a chance to contribute, and hoping for the best in order to win a crappy division isn't a repeat of what this organization has largely done for the past 20 years? I must have been watching a different team.

 

That's certainly a distortion of the problems with the Cubs for the last 20 years, which weren't even that bad of a 20 years.

 

I can't think of too many examples of overpaying, besides the obvious one.

 

I can't really think of too many worthwhile young players who got blocked.

 

And it ignores the biggest problem of all: drafting.

Drafting was obviously the biggest problem, no doubt. But when you try to buy wins via free agency, you're going to be buying wins inefficiently. It's just the nature of free agency. So when you look at deals individually, it's easy to say "that one wasn't so bad" or "that one surprisingly turned out pretty good" but in the aggregate, building a team through free agency will almost always result in mediocrity. So I'm glad Epstein is getting away from that (Hendry was on the right path at the beginning, but eventually the situation spun out of control).

 

As for blocking "worthwhile" young players, my opinion is that a guy's ultimate career path is not always indicative of what a player could have become. So when you say the Cubs haven't produced any "worthwhile" players, you can't just look at the real-life results to make that determination. I'll use Corey Patterson because, to me, he's the most glaring example of this. If Dusty Baker didn't try to make him into Lou Brock, I think he'd still be playing for the Cubs, hitting .260 with power and speed, Gold Glove defense, and a few 30/30 seasons under his belt. Instead, he's a NRI in Milwaukee's camp. Is this how he would have ultimately turned out? Impossible to say, but the Cubs have been too quick to pull the plug on young players or try to mold them into something they're not. I think someone (might have been you, actually) brought up the point that, at the time Kevin Orie was pulled as starting third baseman, he had a ridiculously low BABIP. If the Cubs had been more patient instead of replacing him with guys like Gary Gaetti, maybe he would have had a productive career. I think there's a lot of of these type of players that have come and gone through the system, and Epstein finally is giving some of them a chance (and getting them from other teams). Long-term, this is a much more efficient strategy, but it's going to produce some bumps in the road.

[jersey cubs fan]

As for blocking "worthwhile" young players, my opinion is that a guy's ultimate career path is not always indicative of what a player could have become. So when you say the Cubs haven't produced any "worthwhile" players, you can't just look at the real-life results to make that determination. I'll use Corey Patterson because, to me, he's the most glaring example of this. If Dusty Baker didn't try to make him into Lou Brock, I think he'd still be playing for the Cubs,

 

That is debatable. I think he may have been better if he was handled better. But ultimately he had some fatal flaws. Either way, that doesn't have a damn thing to do with a young kid being blocked. If anything he was rushed to the majors too soon. And he was given a lot of playing time. He had a couple thousand plate appearances for the Cubs and was an everyday starter by the age of 22.

 

at the time Kevin Orie was pulled as starting third baseman, he had a ridiculously low BABIP. If the Cubs had been more patient instead of replacing him with guys like Gary Gaetti, maybe he would have had a productive career.

 

Orie is a could have been, but he was really a part of the pre-Hendry era. Jim was in the lower rungs at the time. And realistically even if his career turned out much better you are probably talking about a guy who just held a spot for 4-5 years before being replaced. He wasn't a stud in the waiting.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'm not entirely sure what "Building a team through free agency" is supposed to mean.

 

It's not like Hendry decided to suck at drafting on purpose. He needed players, the farm system didn't have any because he sucked at drafting, so he got them the only other ways he could.

[davell]

I would have liked to see us add a couple of bats here or there as well. That said, who was out there that wound up on a decent contract that would have upgraded us at a position of need?

[Cubbie Swagger]

Even if everything goes right, I really don't see how we're going to be better than .500 this year. I do like what Theo and Jed are doing with the team, though.

 

So your Cubbie Swagger is feeling a little less swaggerish these days.

Unfortunately, yes. The 2012 Cubs are suffering from a swag deficiency.

[Guest]

I can't really think of any worthwhile young player that got inordinately blocked from contributing in the recent generation of Cubs teams. Soto was blocked momentarily, but that one changed in a hurry.

 

The problem was a lack of worthwhile young players, not an unwillingness to use them.

 

Cruz in 2003 is about it.

 

He might not have turned out to be great, but at the time it was awful...and he definitely would've been better than Estes.

 

That said, I completely agree with your overall point. We've blocked nobody.

[dew1679666265]

I would have liked to see us add a couple of bats here or there as well. That said, who was out there that wound up on a decent contract that would have upgraded us at a position of need?

 

Pujols, Darvish, Cespedes. There's obviously debate over what a "decent contract" is for each of those, but they are all guys I'm varying levels of disappointed we didn't get.

[davell]

I'm very pleased with our 1B situation. Cespedes would have been nice, but FA after 4 years is risky. Darvish becomes an ace? Yeah, I'll regret that one. Because he's headed towards his prime years. That said, I can understand if Theo wanted to stay away from bigtime contracts until he got a better feel for what we have.

[Guest]

Can someone tell me how having Cespedes until he turns 30 and then a FA is somehow riskier than having him til he's 32? If you were willing to give him 6 years you should be willing to give him 4, because if he's not worth it over 4 that means he must be taking two seasons to hit his stride(at which point you wouldn't give him the dollars for 6 years).

[dew1679666265]

I'm very pleased with our 1B situation. Cespedes would have been nice, but FA after 4 years is risky. Darvish becomes an ace? Yeah, I'll regret that one. Because he's headed towards his prime years. That said, I can understand if Theo wanted to stay away from bigtime contracts until he got a better feel for what we have.

 

It's rare that I would ever support passing on premiere talent when the money is available. I did when Dunn was available, while admitting it was risky, but completely passing on the high-end talent this offseason made no sense to me.

 

On the 1B situation, Rizzo's a nice player, but he's still unproven and he cost us Cashner. Pujols is a risk due to age, but he only would have cost us money, something we should have plenty of and should remain plentiful with the exceptional drafting/developing abilities of our front office.

 

On Cespedes, it's simply a good gamble. Yeah he may bust, but then we're just paying him $9 million a year - his defense should nearly cover that. However, the upside was to have an elite talent in the corner OF at a ridiculous bargain. It's the type of smart move I expected our front office to make.

 

That said I wouldn't advocate adding all of those players, more like 1 of Pujols and Darvish + Cespedes. Or even just one of them would have been better than nothing.

Edited March 22, 2012 by dew

[davell]

For me, it's the possible adjustment period and the outlook of our team. If he needs minor league time, it's less time to get production from him. And I think we're probably 2 to 3 years away from hitting our stride, so if he IS very good, we'd only have him for a year or two, while in contention, then we'd have to pay him bigtime cash. Those extra 2 years could conceivably give us quite a few options payroll wise during that time.

[dew1679666265]

For me, it's the possible adjustment period and the outlook of our team. If he needs minor league time, it's less time to get production from him. And I think we're probably 2 to 3 years away from hitting our stride, so if he IS very good, we'd only have him for a year or two, while in contention, then we'd have to pay him bigtime cash. Those extra 2 years could conceivably give us quite a few options payroll wise during that time.

 

We're only 2-3 years away from being good because we've passed on talented players like Cespedes. You add talent like him, your window moves a little closer.

[KingCubsFan]

Can someone tell me how having Cespedes until he turns 30 and then a FA is somehow riskier than having him til he's 32? If you were willing to give him 6 years you should be willing to give him 4, because if he's not worth it over 4 that means he must be taking two seasons to hit his stride(at which point you wouldn't give him the dollars for 6 years).

For the type of player Cespedes is projected to be, 6/36 was a good deal, but 4/36 really wasn't. Especially considering the higher-than-average bust risk he holds.

[Guest]

Can someone tell me how having Cespedes until he turns 30 and then a FA is somehow riskier than having him til he's 32? If you were willing to give him 6 years you should be willing to give him 4, because if he's not worth it over 4 that means he must be taking two seasons to hit his stride(at which point you wouldn't give him the dollars for 6 years).

For the type of player Cespedes is projected to be, 6/36 was a good deal, but 4/36 really wasn't. Especially considering the higher-than-average bust risk he holds.

 

He only has to be worth about 2 WAR/year to be worth that contract.

 

Not guaranteed but it's not a big risk.

[KingCubsFan]

Can someone tell me how having Cespedes until he turns 30 and then a FA is somehow riskier than having him til he's 32? If you were willing to give him 6 years you should be willing to give him 4, because if he's not worth it over 4 that means he must be taking two seasons to hit his stride(at which point you wouldn't give him the dollars for 6 years).

For the type of player Cespedes is projected to be, 6/36 was a good deal, but 4/36 really wasn't. Especially considering the higher-than-average bust risk he holds.

 

He only has to be worth about 2 WAR/year to be worth that contract.

 

Not guaranteed but it's not a big risk.

That just doesn't seem realistic to me. That would mean someone like Coco Crisp is worth that contract, and I think that's absurd.

[Guest]

Can someone tell me how having Cespedes until he turns 30 and then a FA is somehow riskier than having him til he's 32? If you were willing to give him 6 years you should be willing to give him 4, because if he's not worth it over 4 that means he must be taking two seasons to hit his stride(at which point you wouldn't give him the dollars for 6 years).

For the type of player Cespedes is projected to be, 6/36 was a good deal, but 4/36 really wasn't. Especially considering the higher-than-average bust risk he holds.

 

He only has to be worth about 2 WAR/year to be worth that contract.

 

Not guaranteed but it's not a big risk.

That just doesn't seem realistic to me. That would mean someone like Coco Crisp is worth that contract, and I think that's absurd.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/linear-dollars-per-win-again/

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/a-retrospective-look-at-the-price-of-a-win/

[mul21]

Can someone tell me how having Cespedes until he turns 30 and then a FA is somehow riskier than having him til he's 32? If you were willing to give him 6 years you should be willing to give him 4, because if he's not worth it over 4 that means he must be taking two seasons to hit his stride(at which point you wouldn't give him the dollars for 6 years).

For the type of player Cespedes is projected to be, 6/36 was a good deal, but 4/36 really wasn't. Especially considering the higher-than-average bust risk he holds.

 

He only has to be worth about 2 WAR/year to be worth that contract.

 

Not guaranteed but it's not a big risk.

 

I think that's a bit of a skewed way of looking at it given the risk inherent in signing a guy who has no big league (or minor league, for that matter) track record and the odd conditions under which he's a free agent. I just don't think it apples to apples to compare him to a ML FA with a track record in terms of how you're going to pay him.

[CubColtPacer]

Can someone tell me how having Cespedes until he turns 30 and then a FA is somehow riskier than having him til he's 32? If you were willing to give him 6 years you should be willing to give him 4, because if he's not worth it over 4 that means he must be taking two seasons to hit his stride(at which point you wouldn't give him the dollars for 6 years).

For the type of player Cespedes is projected to be, 6/36 was a good deal, but 4/36 really wasn't. Especially considering the higher-than-average bust risk he holds.

 

He only has to be worth about 2 WAR/year to be worth that contract.

 

Not guaranteed but it's not a big risk.

That just doesn't seem realistic to me. That would mean someone like Coco Crisp is worth that contract, and I think that's absurd.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/linear-dollars-per-win-again/

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/a-retrospective-look-at-the-price-of-a-win/

 

The counterpoint is this. The 5 million/WAR is for free agency. So a better way to say it is a 10 million player producing 2 WAR is about what you should expect on the free agent market. Whether than player is actually worth 10 million to that team is based on a whole lot of other factors. In the Cubs case, their park being so small makes having 3 good defenders in the OF not be as important. That combined with the players they already have locked in (specifically Jackson+Dejesus for 2013) make Cespedes a little less valuable to them. The Cubs also have internal options that can play above replacement level for the minimum, which makes Cespedes a little less valuable again. There are also payroll, roster space, and playing time constraints to consider.

 

Adding another 2 WAR outfielder who's locked in at a non-discount price over the next 4 years probably hurts the Cubs more than it helps. They are forced to trade DeJesus and probably get less value than he's worth if they want to develop any OF besides Jackson. They are also forced to trade him if they want to sign a free agent or make a trade to acquire an elite OF. It's a perfectly fine free agent deal if you look at just it alone, but it would be a disappointment for the Cubs is that's what Cespedes would give them.

[KingCubsFan]

Can someone tell me how having Cespedes until he turns 30 and then a FA is somehow riskier than having him til he's 32? If you were willing to give him 6 years you should be willing to give him 4, because if he's not worth it over 4 that means he must be taking two seasons to hit his stride(at which point you wouldn't give him the dollars for 6 years).

For the type of player Cespedes is projected to be, 6/36 was a good deal, but 4/36 really wasn't. Especially considering the higher-than-average bust risk he holds.

 

He only has to be worth about 2 WAR/year to be worth that contract.

 

Not guaranteed but it's not a big risk.

That just doesn't seem realistic to me. That would mean someone like Coco Crisp is worth that contract, and I think that's absurd.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/linear-dollars-per-win-again/

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/a-retrospective-look-at-the-price-of-a-win/

I know where the number comes from, I just don't agree it's a realistic indicator in practice as to whether a player is worth a certain dollar figure on the free agent market.

[jersey cubs fan]

http://www.cnnsi.com/2012/baseball/mlb/03/28/si.mlb.2012.preview/index.html?eref=sihp&sct=hp_t11_a0

 

SI has the Cubs at 66-96.