Moving forward- very early look at 2013

[jersey cubs fan]

"Passing on" Cespedes?

 

Yep, we pursued him but wouldn't give him the deal he wanted. Thus we passed on him.

 

Yeah, they pretty clearly passed on the guy. It wasn't a blind bid or anything like Darvish, he wanted a deal the Cubs wouldn't offer.

[sneakypower]

Cespedes, after the first week of the season

 

.238/.286/.345

[SouthSideRyan]

Ya know, Cespedes really hasn't been that good.

[Sammy Sofa]

But wouldn't you have been signing him with the understanding that even if he's not great his first season he'd still very much be a work in progress?

[SouthSideRyan]

But wouldn't you have been signing him with the understanding that even if he's not great his first season he'd still very much be a work in progress?

 

A work in progress that is only signed for 4 years.

[Cubswin11]

But wouldn't you have been signing him with the understanding that even if he's not great his first season he'd still very much be a work in progress?

 

A work in progress that is only signed for 4 years.

Isn't he already 26-27 too?

[jersey cubs fan]

But wouldn't you have been signing him with the understanding that even if he's not great his first season he'd still very much be a work in progress?

 

A work in progress that is only signed for 4 years.

 

Is that a bad thing? I think people went a little overboard with the whole "years of team contract" obsession this offseason.

[Sammy Sofa]

But wouldn't you have been signing him with the understanding that even if he's not great his first season he'd still very much be a work in progress?

 

A work in progress that is only signed for 4 years.

 

Is that a bad thing? I think people went a little overboard with the whole "years of team contract" obsession this offseason.

 

Yeah, no kidding; and yes, he's older, but I'm still surprised you've got people talking like it's a surprise that he's struggling two months into his MLB career. The main selling point around him seemed to have been his raw talent and ability and how it would have be molded to succeed here.

Edited May 24, 2012 by Sammy Sofa

[Hairyducked Idiot]

But wouldn't you have been signing him with the understanding that even if he's not great his first season he'd still very much be a work in progress?

 

A work in progress that is only signed for 4 years.

 

Is that a bad thing? I think people went a little overboard with the whole "years of team contract" obsession this offseason.

 

We've got Dave Sappelt for *five more years*. How is that not awesome?

[SouthSideRyan]

But wouldn't you have been signing him with the understanding that even if he's not great his first season he'd still very much be a work in progress?

 

A work in progress that is only signed for 4 years.

 

Is that a bad thing? I think people went a little overboard with the whole "years of team contract" obsession this offseason.

 

If he's a work in progress, how is it not?

[SouthSideRyan]

But wouldn't you have been signing him with the understanding that even if he's not great his first season he'd still very much be a work in progress?

 

A work in progress that is only signed for 4 years.

 

Is that a bad thing? I think people went a little overboard with the whole "years of team contract" obsession this offseason.

 

Yeah, no kidding; and yes, he's older, but I'm still surprised you've got people talking like it's a surprise that he's struggling two months into his MLB career. The main selling point around him seemed to have been his raw talent and ability and how it would have be molded to succeed here.

 

Call it backlash to the spazballs who wouldn't shut up a week into the season about how we passed on a star.

[Sammy Sofa]

But wouldn't you have been signing him with the understanding that even if he's not great his first season he'd still very much be a work in progress?

 

A work in progress that is only signed for 4 years.

 

Is that a bad thing? I think people went a little overboard with the whole "years of team contract" obsession this offseason.

 

Yeah, no kidding; and yes, he's older, but I'm still surprised you've got people talking like it's a surprise that he's struggling two months into his MLB career. The main selling point around him seemed to have been his raw talent and ability and how it would have be molded to succeed here.

 

Call it backlash to the spazballs who wouldn't shut up a week into the season about how we passed on a star.

 

I believe most of that was with tongues firmly planted in cheeks.

[Sammy Sofa]

But wouldn't you have been signing him with the understanding that even if he's not great his first season he'd still very much be a work in progress?

 

A work in progress that is only signed for 4 years.

 

Is that a bad thing? I think people went a little overboard with the whole "years of team contract" obsession this offseason.

 

If he's a work in progress, how is it not?

 

A "work in progress" in a sense of it'd probably take him a season or bit more to figure things out.

[Guest]

If a team's assumption at the time of Cespedes' signing was that he'd be worthless for a while before kicking it into gear, then his 4 years to FA contract doesn't seem all that appetizing. You'd have to believe that after struggling he'd become the new Vlad or some 5-7 win monster, otherwise you'd have just as much benefit from making consecutive small deals with a DeJesus/Willingham type player, and there'd be less performance and contract risk.

[jersey cubs fan]

 

If he's a work in progress, how is it not?

 

Because 4 years isn't that short of an amount of time, and it's not some expiration date. You could always keep him longer.

[SouthSideRyan]

But wouldn't you have been signing him with the understanding that even if he's not great his first season he'd still very much be a work in progress?

 

A work in progress that is only signed for 4 years.

 

Is that a bad thing? I think people went a little overboard with the whole "years of team contract" obsession this offseason.

 

If he's a work in progress, how is it not?

 

A "work in progress" in a sense of it'd probably take him a season or bit more to figure things out.

 

Or he'll never figure it out.

 

I feel a lot more comfortable molding a 19 year old in your likeness than trying to overhaul a 26 year old.

[jersey cubs fan]

 

I feel a lot more comfortable molding a 19 year old in your likeness than trying to overhaul a 26 year old.

 

If it was an either/or situation only then you'd have a point.

[treebird]

If a team's assumption at the time of Cespedes' signing was that he'd be worthless for a while before kicking it into gear, then his 4 years to FA contract doesn't seem all that appetizing. You'd have to believe that after struggling he'd become the new Vlad or some 5-7 win monster, otherwise you'd have just as much benefit from making consecutive small deals with a DeJesus/Willingham type player, and there'd be less performance and contract risk.

 

didn't he get 4/36? and don't we assume 5 million per WAR?

 

unless one of those is wrong, he'd have to flame out pretty hard to not be worth the money.

[SouthSideRyan]

If a team's assumption at the time of Cespedes' signing was that he'd be worthless for a while before kicking it into gear, then his 4 years to FA contract doesn't seem all that appetizing. You'd have to believe that after struggling he'd become the new Vlad or some 5-7 win monster, otherwise you'd have just as much benefit from making consecutive small deals with a DeJesus/Willingham type player, and there'd be less performance and contract risk.

 

didn't he get 4/36? and don't we assume 5 million per WAR?

 

unless one of those is wrong, he'd have to flame out pretty hard to not be worth the money.

 

Well he's sitting -0.6 right now, so he's not off to a great start.

[Guest]

If a team's assumption at the time of Cespedes' signing was that he'd be worthless for a while before kicking it into gear, then his 4 years to FA contract doesn't seem all that appetizing. You'd have to believe that after struggling he'd become the new Vlad or some 5-7 win monster, otherwise you'd have just as much benefit from making consecutive small deals with a DeJesus/Willingham type player, and there'd be less performance and contract risk.

 

didn't he get 4/36? and don't we assume 5 million per WAR?

 

unless one of those is wrong, he'd have to flame out pretty hard to not be worth the money.

 

He might be worth the money, but the path is what I was getting at. If a team thinks that he'll have these growing pains and he's insisting on 4 years, unless he has potential to be a real star, you can get the same value without the risk by getting a stop gap guy for two years(and then again). That's not exactly the stuff of regrets.

[jersey cubs fan]

He might be worth the money, but the path is what I was getting at. If a team thinks that he'll have these growing pains and he's insisting on 4 years, unless he has potential to be a real star, you can get the same value without the risk by getting a stop gap guy for two years(and then again). That's not exactly the stuff of regrets.

 

In theory, but those value acquisitions don't exactly always pan out and on teams like the Cubs there's plenty of room (and need actually) for both types.

[Sammy Sofa]

 

I feel a lot more comfortable molding a 19 year old in your likeness than trying to overhaul a 26 year old.

 

If it was an either/or situation only then you'd have a point.

 

Plus the appeal is that he wouldn't have to be "overhauled."

[Backtobanks]

Speaking of awesome pitching this morning, potential future Cubs ace Cole Hamels on the mound this year:

 

62 IP / 50 H/ 16 R/ 15 ER (love only one unearned run so far, random)/ 5 HR/ 13 BB/ 66 K/ 2.61 FIP/ 2.89 xFIP

 

Not getting as many groundballs as last year (52.3 vs 42.7%), but he's also getting more swinging strikes (11.3 vs 13%) and again killing it on first pitch strikes.

 

Just saying if they sign this guy, Shark is real, and Garza sticks around suddenly they have one of the better top threes in the league, with possibly plenty of viable 4-5 options (Wood, Volstad, maybe resign Dempster, maybe McNutt shows up, and so on).

 

Make it happy Tanny! Er wrong team...Ricketts/Theo/Hoyer!

 

All of this talk about Cespedes' contract that we wouldn't give him and you think the Cubs are going to give Hamels the 7 year/$150 million contract he's seeking.

[SouthSideRyan]

Speaking of awesome pitching this morning, potential future Cubs ace Cole Hamels on the mound this year:

 

62 IP / 50 H/ 16 R/ 15 ER (love only one unearned run so far, random)/ 5 HR/ 13 BB/ 66 K/ 2.61 FIP/ 2.89 xFIP

 

Not getting as many groundballs as last year (52.3 vs 42.7%), but he's also getting more swinging strikes (11.3 vs 13%) and again killing it on first pitch strikes.

 

Just saying if they sign this guy, Shark is real, and Garza sticks around suddenly they have one of the better top threes in the league, with possibly plenty of viable 4-5 options (Wood, Volstad, maybe resign Dempster, maybe McNutt shows up, and so on).

 

Make it happy Tanny! Er wrong team...Ricketts/Theo/Hoyer!

 

All of this talk about Cespedes' contract that we wouldn't give him and you think the Cubs are going to give Hamels the 7 year/$150 million contract he's seeking.

 

Yeah, they probably won't ever sign somebody to more than 2Y/9M

[Little Slide Rooter]

Between the end of 2011 and the end of 2012, we'll have cleared:

 

Post 2011

Ramirez 14.6

Fukudome 14.5

Pena 5

Grabow 4.8 (really Hendry?)

 

Added after 2011

DeJesus 4.25

Maholm 4.75

Stewart 2.237

 

Post 2012

 

Zambrano 15.5 (the rest covered by Marlins)

Dempster: 14

Byrd: 6.5

Pena 5 ( i think that's how it worked)

Kerry Wood 3(I'm assuming already off the payroll, but since it was a part of the opening day, I'll count it)

Reed 1.15

Baker 1.375

I'm not sure, but I'm thinking that we're still paying something in the Bradley/Silva debacle.

 

It made sense not to give Pujols or Fielder the type of contracts they got. While I commend them for not just splurging a a big chunk of it on players that they didn't want or feel could help them get the team where they wanted it to be and keep it there, although Darvish and Cespedes certainly seemed like the type of investments that would have fit the mold, but sometimes you just lose a bidding war. This being said, while there's no reason to splurge it all on whatever's available, there's no exscuse not to use some of it on the type of free agents that can help us long term. As much as I still want Hamilton, I cringe at the thought of giving a 31 year old former substance abuser more than 5 years, so maybe Upton would be the better answer for a long term fix. I stand by Hamels or Greinke, and forgot about Marcum.