Brett Jackson and Josh Vitters called up!

[WrigleyField 22]

DeJesus and Stewart were both coming off career lows in WAR. Maholm had his value diminish due to a shoulder injury. All were buy-low acquisitions.

 

That's a disingenuous comparison. DeJesus and Maholm's "low" were still solid players, and their highs were above-average starters.

 

Ian Stewart's low was a sub-replacement player and his high was a barely average starter in part-time duty.

 

You could pick up some terrible career organizational minor leaguer coming off his worst season, give him a starting job and say "see! It's buy-low, just like DeJesus and Maholm!" But it's not just like them.

Why not factor in cost? Maholm and DeJesus required a bit more financial commitment. But relative to cost commitment they were pretty similair. Although not exactly. Stewarts was more a bet on improved health, but the same general thought

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Magnetic Curses]

Kyle likes to present elaborate arguments that completely whiff on important variables.

[davell]

This is your FA market for 3B this offseason: Scott Rolen, Mark Reynolds, Kevin Youkilis, Eric Chavez, Macier Izturis, and Placido Polanco. Pretty awe-inspiring. If we decide to go with Stewart, over THAT group, I'll understand.

[Gilby]

Levine said recently that the Cubs view Valbuena as a prospect. It wouldn't shock me if they think he's the starting 3B next season. There just aren't a lot of great choices, and I'm of the opinion Vitters will be traded.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Why not factor in cost? Maholm and DeJesus required a bit more financial commitment. But relative to cost commitment they were pretty similair. Although not exactly. Stewarts was more a bet on improved health, but the same general thought

 

 

The cost was valuable MLB playing time, which is a lot more valuable than the piddly cash we threw around on these players.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Kyle likes to present elaborate arguments that completely whiff on important variables.

 

Kyle likes to dance circles around people who are bending over backwards to make things look better for the Cubs than they actually are.

[Guest]

Yep, the notion that Ian Stewart was a buy-low candidate, and that Maholm and DeJesus were too, sure is grasping for positivity straws.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Yep, the notion that Ian Stewart was a buy-low candidate, and that Maholm and DeJesus were too, sure is grasping for positivity straws.

 

Using the umbrella term to connect the Ian Stewart pickup to those two is one of the more egregious examples in the long-running trend to make "buy low" the most overrated concept in smart baseball fandom right now.

[Guest]

You don't have to have 25 points of similarity for there to be a comparison. All 3 were brought in on the hope and expectation they would improve from what they had done in previous years. Maholm and DeJesus had higher baselines to improve from, but also a more limited ceiling than if Stewart had a breakthrough. They took the gamble on Stewart's increased risk because he had more years of team control than DeJesus and Maholm, and was also in/entering prime years while the other 2 are in their 30's. Not really sure where the anger fits in here.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

You don't have to have 25 points of similarity for there to be a comparison. All 3 were brought in on the hope and expectation they would improve from what they had done in previous years. Maholm and DeJesus had higher baselines to improve from, but also a more limited ceiling than if Stewart had a breakthrough. They took the gamble on Stewart's increased risk because he had more years of team control than DeJesus and Maholm. Not really sure where the anger fits in here.

 

Anger?

 

David DeJesus and Paul Maholm were good at baseball even when they were at their low. Ian Stewart has only ever been good at baseball during his brief high. It's a pretty important distinction.

[WrigleyField 22]

Why not factor in cost? Maholm and DeJesus required a bit more financial commitment. But relative to cost commitment they were pretty similair. Although not exactly. Stewarts was more a bet on improved health, but the same general thought

 

 

The cost was valuable MLB playing time, which is a lot more valuable than the piddly cash we threw around on these players.

Valuable playing time over which alternatives?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CincyCubsFan]

So we shouldn't have signed Mahlom and spun him for long term assets because he was blocking playing time for....whom, exactly?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

So we shouldn't have signed Mahlom and spun him for long term assets because he was blocking playing time for....whom, exactly?

 

You misunderstood.

 

Maholm was worth the playing time. Ian Stewart wasn't.

 

It doesn't matter that Ian Stewart cost us virtually nothing in trade chips and cash, because the opportunity cost of using up your starting 3b slot was worth more than he was.

[Warpticon]

You don't have to have 25 points of similarity for there to be a comparison. All 3 were brought in on the hope and expectation they would improve from what they had done in previous years. Maholm and DeJesus had higher baselines to improve from, but also a more limited ceiling than if Stewart had a breakthrough. They took the gamble on Stewart's increased risk because he had more years of team control than DeJesus and Maholm. Not really sure where the anger fits in here.

 

Anger?

 

David DeJesus and Paul Maholm were good at baseball even when they were at their low. Ian Stewart has only ever been good at baseball during his brief high. It's a pretty important distinction.

 

"Using up your starting 3B slot?" So, this is fantasy baseball now?

 

Yes, his "brief high" which was reached at 25 years old, as he was entering his prime, as compared to 30-year-old Maholm and 32-year-old Dejesus. I can't imagine why anyone would have thought he, if healthy, might contribute similar production, other than, you know, that sort of thing happening frequently throughout the history of baseball.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

You don't have to have 25 points of similarity for there to be a comparison. All 3 were brought in on the hope and expectation they would improve from what they had done in previous years. Maholm and DeJesus had higher baselines to improve from, but also a more limited ceiling than if Stewart had a breakthrough. They took the gamble on Stewart's increased risk because he had more years of team control than DeJesus and Maholm. Not really sure where the anger fits in here.

 

Anger?

 

David DeJesus and Paul Maholm were good at baseball even when they were at their low. Ian Stewart has only ever been good at baseball during his brief high. It's a pretty important distinction.

 

"Using up your starting 3B slot?" So, this is fantasy baseball now?

 

Yes, his "brief high" which was reached at 25 years old, as he was entering his prime, as compared to 30-year-old Maholm and 32-year-old Dejesus. I can't imagine why anyone would have thought he, if healthy, might contribute similar production, other than, you know, that sort of thing happening frequently throughout the history of baseball.

 

Ok, I'm game. Give me some examples of what you consider to be comparable gambles that paid off.

[Warpticon]

You don't have to have 25 points of similarity for there to be a comparison. All 3 were brought in on the hope and expectation they would improve from what they had done in previous years. Maholm and DeJesus had higher baselines to improve from, but also a more limited ceiling than if Stewart had a breakthrough. They took the gamble on Stewart's increased risk because he had more years of team control than DeJesus and Maholm. Not really sure where the anger fits in here.

 

Anger?

 

David DeJesus and Paul Maholm were good at baseball even when they were at their low. Ian Stewart has only ever been good at baseball during his brief high. It's a pretty important distinction.

 

"Using up your starting 3B slot?" So, this is fantasy baseball now?

 

Yes, his "brief high" which was reached at 25 years old, as he was entering his prime, as compared to 30-year-old Maholm and 32-year-old Dejesus. I can't imagine why anyone would have thought he, if healthy, might contribute similar production, other than, you know, that sort of thing happening frequently throughout the history of baseball.

 

Ok, I'm game. Give me some examples of what you consider to be comparable gambles that paid off.

 

I'm not talking about "comparable gambles," I'm talking about a players entering their primes sustaining an established level of performance (injuries notwithstanding). In short, there wasn't a lot of reason to think that, if healthy, a Stewart entering his prime wouldn't produce closer to his 2010 than his 2011. And, considering there wasn't much of anything "using up the starting 3B slot," I don't understand your insistence that his acquisition was robbing the Cubs of some irreplaceable asset.

 

And if I had actually meant "gambles that paid off," you wouldn't have to think more than a minute or two or even look beyond the Cubs to come up with examples. Michael Barrett? Matt Clement?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'm not talking about "comparable gambles," I'm talking about a players entering their primes sustaining an established level of performance (injuries notwithstanding). In short, there wasn't a lot of reason to think that, if healthy, a Stewart entering his prime wouldn't produce closer to his 2010 than his 2011. And, considering there wasn't much of anything "using up the starting 3B slot," I don't understand your insistence that his acquisition was robbing the Cubs of some irreplaceable asset.

 

And if I had actually meant "gambles that paid off," you wouldn't have to think more than a minute or two or even look beyond the Cubs to come up with examples. Michael Barrett? Matt Clement?

 

 

There was a massive ton of reasons to think that his 2012 wouldn't be much like his 2010. All of which we hashed out in the pre-season Stewart discussions. 1) Wrist injuries frequently linger for a lot longer than just a year, or even two. 2) High K players are prone to falling off a cliff. 3) His 2011 suckiness pre-dated the wrist injury. 4) He wouldn't be playing 2010 in Colorado.

 

Michael Barrett is a nice pull, though.

[Warpticon]

I'm not talking about "comparable gambles," I'm talking about a players entering their primes sustaining an established level of performance (injuries notwithstanding). In short, there wasn't a lot of reason to think that, if healthy, a Stewart entering his prime wouldn't produce closer to his 2010 than his 2011. And, considering there wasn't much of anything "using up the starting 3B slot," I don't understand your insistence that his acquisition was robbing the Cubs of some irreplaceable asset.

 

And if I had actually meant "gambles that paid off," you wouldn't have to think more than a minute or two or even look beyond the Cubs to come up with examples. Michael Barrett? Matt Clement?

 

 

There was a massive ton of reasons to think that his 2012 wouldn't be much like his 2010. All of which we hashed out in the pre-season Stewart discussions. 1) Wrist injuries frequently linger for a lot longer than just a year, or even two. 2) High K players are prone to falling off a cliff. 3) His 2011 suckiness pre-dated the wrist injury. 4) He wouldn't be playing 2010 in Colorado.

 

Michael Barrett is a nice pull, though.

 

"Massive ton?" Are you trying to make it harder to take you seriously? 1) Apparently you chose to ignore the "if healthy" part of the post you were replying to. 2) This means next to nothing. 3) His 2011 suckiness also covered a whopping 145 plate appearances. 4) Stewart's splits were better on the road than at home, so that's a bad argument. At best, your "massive ton" of reasons amounts to something like 1 and a half points of contention.

 

Nobody was, or is, saying it wasn't a risk. Everybody knows it was a risk. What is ridiculous is your repeated characterization of that risk as some sort of impediment to progress. There was a weak 3B free agent class and nobody in the system who was major league ready. There was no opportunity cost in acquiring Ian Stewart. At worst, it took a few PAs from Valbuena. Boo hoo.

[davell]

Kyle, I just listed who's available in FA for this offseason, what do you want to see? Sure, we can attempt to trade for someone, but who and why, when we have Baez and Villanueva both as solid to better than that type prospects. Mike Olt would be great, but we don't have anything Texas would want enough to give him up.

[XZero771679666304]

I'm not talking about "comparable gambles," I'm talking about a players entering their primes sustaining an established level of performance (injuries notwithstanding). In short, there wasn't a lot of reason to think that, if healthy, a Stewart entering his prime wouldn't produce closer to his 2010 than his 2011. And, considering there wasn't much of anything "using up the starting 3B slot," I don't understand your insistence that his acquisition was robbing the Cubs of some irreplaceable asset.

 

And if I had actually meant "gambles that paid off," you wouldn't have to think more than a minute or two or even look beyond the Cubs to come up with examples. Michael Barrett? Matt Clement?

 

 

There was a massive ton of reasons to think that his 2012 wouldn't be much like his 2010. All of which we hashed out in the pre-season Stewart discussions. 1) Wrist injuries frequently linger for a lot longer than just a year, or even two. 2) High K players are prone to falling off a cliff. 3) His 2011 suckiness pre-dated the wrist injury. 4) He wouldn't be playing 2010 in Colorado.

 

Michael Barrett is a nice pull, though.

 

 

I'm curious as to what better alternatives there were to Stewart (or another Stewart-like acquisition). Theo/Jed picked up their half of Ramirez's option, may have inquired on Headley and after that, there was a whole lot of nothing. They executives, not sorcerers.

 

Honestly, they knew that the team wasn't going to be competing this year, so in the absence of more attractive options they took a low risk gamble on a guy not far removed from being one of the top prospects in the game, had shown flashes of brilliance in Colorado and was still young and coming off of an injury that could have explained his down 2011. Was this so egregious? Yes, there were signs the Stewart may well be a bust, but what was sacrificed by finding out for sure? Nothing as far as I can tell, aside from some ridiculous notion about "using up the 3B slot".

 

And as bad as he was this year (post-early May), he was right at replacement level. Before his wrist really acted up, his K% was down, his LD% was up and he looked like he might actually have some potential. I know what wrist surgery can do to a player, but unless Theo/Jed can pry Headley away from the Pads or wrest a top 3B prospect away from another team this offseason, I'd be inclined to give Stewart another chance next year.

 

And yes, you have some sort of weird anger regarding Stewart. You were waxing psychotic about him from the moment he was acquired. I just think that the Stewart trade and the announcement that he would be the starting 3B was probably the point where you realized that we were in for a full scale rebuild, and now you can't separate your anger about a couple of lost seasons from Stewart. Or you just can't recognize that it was a sensible low risk gamble for a rebuilding team with a hole at 3B in a market bereft of 3B.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

This is your FA market for 3B this offseason: Scott Rolen, Mark Reynolds, Kevin Youkilis, Eric Chavez, Macier Izturis, and Placido Polanco. Pretty awe-inspiring. If we decide to go with Stewart, over THAT group, I'll understand.

 

I'm just completely missing something here. Isn't pretty much every player on that list better, both recently and historically, than Ian Stewart? Why would you want Stewart over any of them, let alone all of them?

[Schwarber Fan]

This is your FA market for 3B this offseason: Scott Rolen, Mark Reynolds, Kevin Youkilis, Eric Chavez, Macier Izturis, and Placido Polanco. Pretty awe-inspiring. If we decide to go with Stewart, over THAT group, I'll understand.

 

I'm just completely missing something here. Isn't pretty much every player on that list better, both recently and historically, than Ian Stewart? Why would you want Stewart over any of them, let alone all of them?

 

Well right off the bat, Rolen and Polanco are way too old to even consider.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

This is your FA market for 3B this offseason: Scott Rolen, Mark Reynolds, Kevin Youkilis, Eric Chavez, Macier Izturis, and Placido Polanco. Pretty awe-inspiring. If we decide to go with Stewart, over THAT group, I'll understand.

 

I'm just completely missing something here. Isn't pretty much every player on that list better, both recently and historically, than Ian Stewart? Why would you want Stewart over any of them, let alone all of them?

 

Well right off the bat, Rolen and Polanco are way too old to even consider.

 

Which is silly. If it's a choice between an old, useful player and a young, horrible player, you might as well take the old one and try to Maholm him.

 

It's not as if we get tons of cost-controlled years out of Stewart if he suddenly becomes useful. Assuming he's not non-tendered, he'll have one more arb year after next.

[XZero771679666304]

This is your FA market for 3B this offseason: Scott Rolen, Mark Reynolds, Kevin Youkilis, Eric Chavez, Macier Izturis, and Placido Polanco. Pretty awe-inspiring. If we decide to go with Stewart, over THAT group, I'll understand.

 

I'm just completely missing something here. Isn't pretty much every player on that list better, both recently and historically, than Ian Stewart? Why would you want Stewart over any of them, let alone all of them?

 

Well right off the bat, Rolen and Polanco are way too old to even consider.

 

Which is silly. If it's a choice between an old, useful player and a young, horrible player, you might as well take the old one and try to Maholm him.

 

It's not as if we get tons of cost-controlled years out of Stewart if he suddenly becomes useful. Assuming he's not non-tendered, he'll have one more arb year after next.

 

With Stewart, you'd at least have a chance of turning him into a long term asset. Suppose he has a big bounce back year and you re-sign him. There's not a significant chance of that, but with guys like Rolen and Polanco there's no chance they become long term assets, and the difference they would make would be tiny when reflected in the W-L record.

 

At this point, it'd be a total waste of time to sign guys on the decline with maybe a year or two left in the league at all. That would be the definition of just taking up a roster spot. There's not even a good chance you could turn them into a trade asset. I'd sooner give Valbuena another year.

[jumbo]

This is your FA market for 3B this offseason: Scott Rolen, Mark Reynolds, Kevin Youkilis, Eric Chavez, Macier Izturis, and Placido Polanco. Pretty awe-inspiring. If we decide to go with Stewart, over THAT group, I'll understand.

 

I'm just completely missing something here. Isn't pretty much every player on that list better, both recently and historically, than Ian Stewart? Why would you want Stewart over any of them, let alone all of them?

 

Rolen is 37

Reynolds has a career strikeout rate of 33%

Youkilis is 33

Chavez is 34 and hasn't put up an Ian Stewart 2009/10 type season since 2007

Izturis is 31 and hasn't put up an ops over 750 since 2008

Polanco is 36

 

Now, I'm not against and older player, but this FO will no go out signing FA who are past their prime just to fill a hole before they try a bounce back candidate of some kind. Reynolds is the only one close to the right age range - and he's 29 already. He isn't the type of hitter that this FO would look for, and beyond that he's only been better than 2009/10 Stewart half of his seasons in MLB.