per AM1000 - Cubs Sign C Dioner Navarro, NOT Jaime

[XZero771679666304]

I'm not mad, but I'm not convinced it's an upgrade over Clevenger either.

 

I am fairly convinced. Clevenger was [expletive] last year. Sub-Koyie Hill type [expletive].

[Guest]

Clevenger OPSed .450 in nearly 200 PAs after he came off the DL. If you're going to break in Castillo, I'm having a hard time understanding why getting some certainty from the backup position for < 2 million is such a bad thing.

 

It's not so much a bad thing as it's a worthless thing to get "certainty" in the form of poor performance.

 

What do you think is acceptable performance from a backup catcher? What were you wanting them to do?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'm not mad, but I'm not convinced it's an upgrade over Clevenger either.

 

I am fairly convinced. Clevenger was [expletive] last year. Sub-Koyie Hill type [expletive].

 

True. But he's probably not *that* bad if given another chance, and Navarro's put up some stinker seasons himself.

[questionmarkgrace]

I just dont get it. Why sign a guy like navarro when there are solid enough in house candidates and the upgrade is marginal at best? And with so many other holes to fill it really seems like a waste. When theo talks about acquiring assets and trying to make the team better the right way while not overspending for talents moves like these make you wonder what is going on.

 

The only thing i could think is maybe garza had a good repor with him while with the rays?

[XZero771679666304]

I'm not mad, but I'm not convinced it's an upgrade over Clevenger either.

 

I am fairly convinced. Clevenger was [expletive] last year. Sub-Koyie Hill type [expletive].

 

True. But he's probably not *that* bad if given another chance, and Navarro's put up some stinker seasons himself.

 

Yeah, I guess I'm pretty ambivalent about it. I can see reasons for it and against it, but the risk is minimal and Navarro won't be blocking anyone. He did have a pretty nice season (by backup catcher standards) last year, though.

[KingCubsFan]

I just dont get it. Why sign a guy like navarro when there are solid enough in house candidates and the upgrade is marginal at best? And with so many other holes to fill it really seems like a waste. When theo talks about acquiring assets and trying to make the team better the right way while not overspending for talents moves like these make you wonder what is going on.

 

The only thing i could think is maybe garza had a good repor with him while with the rays?

They probably want a veteran backup for Castillo, and maybe they value Navarro's defense. Having a good relationship with Garza couldn't hurt considering we're going to be looking to trade him.

[XZero771679666304]

Garza and Navarro had a pretty well publicized fight in the dugout in 2008, though I'm not sure if it was an isolated incident or if they had/have a problem with each other. Edited November 15, 2012 by XZero77

[Post Count Padder]

Pretty meh. Navarro is a pretty decent fielder and could be helpful teaching Castillo, who could use some more work. That money seems a bit high, but as others have said, it's not enough to really complain about. It's one year and he's an upgrade over Clevenger. I'm having a hard time believing he is still just 28.

[Gilby]

I just dont get it. Why sign a guy like navarro when there are solid enough in house candidates and the upgrade is marginal at best? And with so many other holes to fill it really seems like a waste. When theo talks about acquiring assets and trying to make the team better the right way while not overspending for talents moves like these make you wonder what is going on.

 

The only thing i could think is maybe garza had a good repor with him while with the rays?

 

The in house candidates are Clevenger and... Michael Brenly? It's a backup catcher, man; it's not worth trying to spin this in a way to be concerned about the front office.

[Brian]

I think you have to be looking for things to complain about when you get upset over a team with no budget concerns signs a back up catcher that won't be blocking any players of concerns from getting MLB at bats for 1.75 million dollars.

 

If the Cubs don't sign (insert player you want the Cubs to sign) it won't be because they gave Dioner Navarro 1.75 million dollars. (unless of course player x is a different back up catcher)

Edited November 16, 2012 by Brian

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I think you have to be looking for things to complain about when you get upset over a team with no budget concerns signs a back up catcher that won't be blocking any players of concerns from getting MLB at bats for 1.75 million dollars.

 

And I think you have to be looking for reasons not to complain to say there's nothing wrong with paying that much for a completely, utterly fungible, replacement-level player.

[Brian]

Would you have an issue with the signing if it was for $750,000

[javy knows my name]

repor

 

That's right up there with ot.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Would you have an issue with the signing if it was for $750,000

 

Nope.

 

And yes, I know that's a tiny amount to quibble over. But I hate paying anything above the bare minimum for such completely fungible players.

 

I'd rather overpay for an average player by $3 million than a replacement-level player by $1 million.

Edited November 16, 2012 by Hairyducked Idiot

[StarlinOnYou]

If Hendry made this signing, there would be outrage.

 

This signing is a non-issue. We are not spending this year anyway.

[Smack]

Would you have an issue with the signing if it was for $750,000

 

Nope.

 

And yes, I know that's a tiny amount to quibble over. But I hate paying anything above the bare minimum for such completely fungible players.

 

It's hard to imagine a bidding war for him that more than doubled the minimum.

[UMFan83]

Why arent these the kind of reported deals that get debunked hours later? Edited November 16, 2012 by UMFan83

[KingCubsFan]

If Hendry made this signing, there would be outrage.

 

This signing is a non-issue. We are not spending this year anyway.

The difference is that Hendry would have given him multiple years. Plus Hendry signed these types of guys for more important roles on the team (utility infielder, fourth outfielder, etc.). A backup catcher doesn't play nearly as much.

[Guest]

If they cut him in ST are they on the hook for the entire contract?

[USSoccer]

If we slightly overpay a few more meh players, we'll have a payroll that will only be an embarrassment to a major market franchise as opposed to one that's an abomination.

[Gilby]

I think you have to be looking for things to complain about when you get upset over a team with no budget concerns signs a back up catcher that won't be blocking any players of concerns from getting MLB at bats for 1.75 million dollars.

 

And I think you have to be looking for reasons not to complain to say there's nothing wrong with paying that much for a completely, utterly fungible, replacement-level player.

 

The extra $1 million will not hold them back from doing anything they want to do in the future. It won't keep them from signing any major league player or an amateur guy. Complaining about this price tag is looking for something to complain about.

 

If you want to complain about the player, fine, but his cost will affect zero moves in the future. It is not your worry.

[questionmarkgrace]

I think you have to be looking for things to complain about when you get upset over a team with no budget concerns signs a back up catcher that won't be blocking any players of concerns from getting MLB at bats for 1.75 million dollars.

 

And I think you have to be looking for reasons not to complain to say there's nothing wrong with paying that much for a completely, utterly fungible, replacement-level player.

 

The extra $1 million will not hold them back from doing anything they want to do in the future. It won't keep them from signing any major league player or an amateur guy. Complaining about this price tag is looking for something to complain about.

 

If you want to complain about the player, fine, but his cost will affect zero moves in the future. It is not your worry.

 

But its a bad move and thats the point. You cant spout off about acquiring assets, utilizing funds better, and making moves for the future when you waste money on a player you dont need. Yeah its only 1.75mil but its moves like this one, resigning reed johnson, baker, etc. They add up to the amount that we could have paid a decent player at a position of need such as third base, pitcher, reliever, etc.

[davell]

This is about protecting a possible asset. If Castillo needs a few days off or something, Navarro may not kill us. He's an upgrade from what we had. If you think 1.75 mill is going to stop us from acquiring the nonexistant 3B thats available, a single SP or multiple RP, you're just wrong. Our payroll AFTER arb cases and autorenewals is around 70 million right now. We'll add whatever we want that fits with what they want. Right now, they acquired a decent, relatively young backup C on a one year deal. He's better than Clevenger, likely a better one year option than anyone else out there. Overanalyzing or bitching about this move? Get real. It affects nothing else we're going to do. And as far as spending too much on multiple guys like this? Where? We've got no openings, unless we want another Reed Johnson, instead of Campana. And you brought up RP, so if they spend on a couple of relievers, they don't even count in this discussion.

[Brian]

They could have paid him 10.75 million and it wouldn't affect signing anybody else on the market.

[hankp101]

They weren't going to get Navarro for 750k. If he is the backup catcher they really wanted and they see something to owning him that benefits castillo long term, so be it. I don't see why league minimum for a backup catcher is always the smart play when your backup catcher sees so much time.