The 2012 Offseason Thread

[Guest]

just saw that bourn signed for 4/48. i would've given him that without thinking twice. actually probably would've gone to around 4/60. nice deal for the tribe.

 

Kind of surprised there wasn't more of an uproar after the Bourn deal. I thought a few weeks ago everyone was hoping to sign him. Considering the money he got, it seems like a pretty big win for the Indians.

It's not a bad deal, but this team needs more offense, not more speed and outfield defense. Not sure if Bourn would have helped this team much.

 

Bourn would've helped this team as much as he would've helped any team that he'd play the same amount of time for.

 

It's about how many runs he contributes (both offensively and defensively). Worrying about how is splitting hairs.

[jersey cubs fan]

just saw that bourn signed for 4/48. i would've given him that without thinking twice. actually probably would've gone to around 4/60. nice deal for the tribe.

 

Kind of surprised there wasn't more of an uproar after the Bourn deal. I thought a few weeks ago everyone was hoping to sign him. Considering the money he got, it seems like a pretty big win for the Indians.

It's not a bad deal, but this team needs more offense, not more speed and outfield defense. Not sure if Bourn would have helped this team much.

 

Bourn would've helped this team as much as he would've helped any team that he'd play the same amount of time for.

 

It's about how many runs he contributes (both offensively and defensively). Worrying about how is splitting hairs.

 

It's not splitting hairs when you consider the inherent weakness in the stats that claim to quantify how many runs a guy contributes with defense and baserunning.

[Guest]

just saw that bourn signed for 4/48. i would've given him that without thinking twice. actually probably would've gone to around 4/60. nice deal for the tribe.

 

Kind of surprised there wasn't more of an uproar after the Bourn deal. I thought a few weeks ago everyone was hoping to sign him. Considering the money he got, it seems like a pretty big win for the Indians.

It's not a bad deal, but this team needs more offense, not more speed and outfield defense. Not sure if Bourn would have helped this team much.

 

Bourn would've helped this team as much as he would've helped any team that he'd play the same amount of time for.

 

It's about how many runs he contributes (both offensively and defensively). Worrying about how is splitting hairs.

 

It's not splitting hairs when you consider the inherent weakness in the stats that claim to quantify how many runs a guy contributes with defense and baserunning.

 

That doesn't change the fact that his contribution would essentially be the same regardless of what team he is on (in terms of the team itself, not stuff like park factors - I guess you could lump in a manager's impact on his baserunning game, but only a dumb manager would have a substantial negative impact on that).

[biittner77]

How does one get the last word on a message board unless they can lock the thread?

 

By boring everyone else into submission.

 

No reason for you to give away your strategies.

 

That reminds me of an incident at a chess tournament a few years ago. Would you like to hear about it?

 

Don't leave us hanging, what happened?

[Tracer Bullet]

It's not a bad deal, but this team needs more offense, not more speed and outfield defense. Not sure if Bourn would have helped this team much.

 

Bourn would've helped this team as much as he would've helped any team that he'd play the same amount of time for.

 

It's about how many runs he contributes (both offensively and defensively). Worrying about how is splitting hairs.

 

It's not splitting hairs when you consider the inherent weakness in the stats that claim to quantify how many runs a guy contributes with defense and baserunning.

 

That doesn't change the fact that his contribution would essentially be the same regardless of what team he is on (in terms of the team itself, not stuff like park factors - I guess you could lump in a manager's impact on his baserunning game, but only a dumb manager would have a substantial negative impact on that).

 

Yeah, I don't think you can say generally that a guy whose primary value is OF defense and baserunning has the same impact on every team. Maybe you can't also say that the Cubs don't need Bourn bc they need offense. But your reply was too much of a generalization.

[Guest]

How about this instead: Michael Bourn would be a very valuable player to any and all Major League Baseball teams?

 

(And probably worth 4/48 - in a non-draft pick compensation encumbered vacuum)

[Tracer Bullet]

The contract seems like a really good deal for the tribe and would be for any team. Nonetheless, given that roster spots and money aren't unlimited, I'm not losing any sleep over the cubs not signing him.

[Guest]

The contract seems like a really good deal for the tribe and would be for any team. Nonetheless, given that roster spots and money aren't unlimited, I'm not losing any sleep over the cubs not signing him.

 

I'd agree.

[KingCubsFan]

How about this instead: Michael Bourn would be a very valuable player to any and all Major League Baseball teams?

 

(And probably worth 4/48 - in a non-draft pick compensation encumbered vacuum)

Depends on how you define "very valuable." For a team like the Cubs who (a) play in a park with a small CF, (b) already have a CF signed to a small deal putting up a better wOBA, and © have a manager like Sveum whose acumen can inflate the defensive value of guys like Soriano and Barney, that $12 million can be better spent elsewhere and he's really not *that* valuable. For a team with a cavernous home outfield and a manager who prefers guys that can steal bases? He's probably more valuable.

 

When a position player primarily derives his worth from something other than hitting, I think that value becomes very subjective. It's much more nuanced than simply looking at a guy's WAR and declaring that he's really good.

[Guest]

While there's certainly room for debate on exactly how much value Bourn is providing outside the bat, it's not as abstract as that comparison. His wOBA is similar to DeJesus because a good chunk of his offensive value is in him averaging 50 SB per year for half a decade. That's certainly more tangible than saying he adds a win on the bases by going from 1st to home more often on doubles and the like. On a similar note, Bourn's always been thought of as a good defender, and even if he's not the average +10 he's averaged the last 4 years, it's not at all unreasonable to expect a value in that direction. That adds up to a guy definitely worth a 4/48 deal. Especially for the Cubs, who have all of 1 base-stealing threat(that will likely be doing less and less of it), and who currently employ an okay-mediocre-decent defensive outfield from left to right.

[Tracer Bullet]

Does the lack of a prominent base stealer really mean that Bourn's prowess is more valuable? I guess I don't see that connection.

 

Obviously a significant improvement in defense over the alternative is still an improvement, though I do think the size of the OF, a manager's ability to improve defense by positioning, and the staff's FB/GB rate (which I don't know) could mitigate that difference somewhat. I still think he'd be worth the contract for the cubs just not terribly concerned they missed out on him.

[Guest]

Does the lack of a prominent base stealer really mean that Bourn's prowess is more valuable? I guess I don't see that connection.

 

Obviously a significant improvement in defense over the alternative is still an improvement, though I do think the size of the OF, a manager's ability to improve defense by positioning, and the staff's FB/GB rate (which I don't know) could mitigate that difference somewhat. I still think he'd be worth the contract for the cubs just not terribly concerned they missed out on him.

 

It doesn't make it more valuable, but the concern brought up was that Bourn's value might be mitigated by Cubs-centric circumstances(current roster, ballpark, etc). I was simply pointing out that the Cubs are not so overflowing with base stealers that Bourn would be more drop in the bucket than elite SB guy.

[Tracer Bullet]

I understand the point, I guess I just don't see how the cubs current roster makes a difference as to the relative value of adding a base stealer. Would a prolific base stealer be less important on the 80s Cardinals that I hated playing against on RBI baseball?

 

Seems to me Bourn's value as a base stealer and base runner generally is important regardless of how good his teammates are in those areas. In fact, the only impact I could see would be the reverse of what you're saying (i.e., he's unable to steal or go first to third bc the team as a whole are so bad at base running, so his value is diminished on a team full of base cloggers). I'm not advocating that position, I'm just saying it seems more plausible than saying Bourn is even more valuable bc he adds an element in base running that the Cubs don't have.

[mul21]

I think when you take into account the general lack of power the Cubs have in their lineup, you could look at a guy with Bourn's baserunning ability as a major positive. The ability to grab that extra base on a regular basis, whether by going 1st to 3rd on a single, stealing a base, or scoring from 1st on a double, could increase the amount of runs scored pretty significantly throughout an entire season.

 

Now, put him on that Cubs team with Sosa, Alou, Ramirez, and D. Lee hitting 3-6 and those extra bases probably aren't as critical since there's a lot higher likelihood of a home run from those guys than the current roster has the ability to produce.

[biittner77]

I think when you take into account the general lack of power the Cubs have in their lineup, you could look at a guy with Bourn's baserunning ability as a major positive. The ability to grab that extra base on a regular basis, whether by going 1st to 3rd on a single, stealing a base, or scoring from 1st on a double, could increase the amount of runs scored pretty significantly throughout an entire season.

 

Now, put him on that Cubs team with Sosa, Alou, Ramirez, and D. Lee hitting 3-6 and those extra bases probably aren't as critical since there's a lot higher likelihood of a home run from those guys than the current roster has the ability to produce.

 

What do you consider "pretty significantly"? How would that compare to getting a CF that could hit for more power?

[WrigleyField 22]

I understand the point, I guess I just don't see how the cubs current roster makes a difference as to the relative value of adding a base stealer. Would a prolific base stealer be less important on the 80s Cardinals that I hated playing against on RBI baseball?

 

Seems to me Bourn's value as a base stealer and base runner generally is important regardless of how good his teammates are in those areas. In fact, the only impact I could see would be the reverse of what you're saying (i.e., he's unable to steal or go first to third bc the team as a whole are so bad at base running, so his value is diminished on a team full of base cloggers). I'm not advocating that position, I'm just saying it seems more plausible than saying Bourn is even more valuable bc he adds an element in base running that the Cubs don't have.

I think his relative importance for these things comes down to who he replaces. In this instance you're essentially saying he replaces a Hairston-Schierholtz platoon, pushing DeJesus over to RF. so it is a pretty big defensive and base stealing upgrade. If for some reason we had Campana as our starting CF, the base stealing is less important, although the relative defensive and hitting upgrade obviously is more. So its kind if evaluating finite resources and a guys value in an area team wide is only as valuable as the alernate he is relacing. Base stealing, hitting, defense, whatever all have a set absolute value, but theres still 27 outs and 8 positions.

 

That being said, thats also a short term view of things, when you sign a guy to 3+ years you can't really anticipate what the relative value of one his traits will be 3 years away, so the absolute is a bigger concern.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Derwood]

Bourn's vesting option makes that contract a lot less desirable, IMO

[TruffleShuffle]

Bourn's vesting option makes that contract a lot less desirable, IMO

 

a $12m salary for his age 35 season makes the contract a lot less desirable? that's pretty small potatoes unless he becomes completely unproductive in 5 years.

[Derwood]

Bourn's vesting option makes that contract a lot less desirable, IMO

 

a $12m salary for his age 35 season makes the contract a lot less desirable? that's pretty small potatoes unless he becomes completely unproductive in 5 years.

 

Speed guys tend to not be so speedy by that age. And it only takes 550 PA for the option to kick in.

 

It's not a terrible option for a larger market team, but the Indians may regret it. Apparently it's the reason the Mets cooled on the deal

[Guest]

Bourn's vesting option makes that contract a lot less desirable, IMO

 

a $12m salary for his age 35 season makes the contract a lot less desirable? that's pretty small potatoes unless he becomes completely unproductive in 5 years.

 

yup, i've certainly never heard of a .700 ops hitter becoming unproductive as early as age 35

[Mike Aller]

Bourn's vesting option makes that contract a lot less desirable, IMO

 

a $12m salary for his age 35 season makes the contract a lot less desirable? that's pretty small potatoes unless he becomes completely unproductive in 5 years.

 

yup, i've certainly never heard of a .700 ops hitter becoming unproductive as early as age 35

I'm assuming a front office, especially one as notoriously cheap as the Indians', won't let the vesting option be a factor if there is a significant drop off.

[mul21]

I think when you take into account the general lack of power the Cubs have in their lineup, you could look at a guy with Bourn's baserunning ability as a major positive. The ability to grab that extra base on a regular basis, whether by going 1st to 3rd on a single, stealing a base, or scoring from 1st on a double, could increase the amount of runs scored pretty significantly throughout an entire season.

 

Now, put him on that Cubs team with Sosa, Alou, Ramirez, and D. Lee hitting 3-6 and those extra bases probably aren't as critical since there's a lot higher likelihood of a home run from those guys than the current roster has the ability to produce.

 

What do you consider "pretty significantly"? How would that compare to getting a CF that could hit for more power?

 

Poorly worded on your first question. I meant to say he could increase the amount of runs scored in a significant way. In other words, runs being at the premium it appears they might be this year along with a seemingly solid pitching staff, the extras scored/created by a guy like Bourn could be significant in terms of games won.

 

On the second, not something I thought about since it's not something readilt available to the Cubs right now. You'd always like to have power at a position that doesn't traditionally have it. Gives you lots of options in filling out your roster.

[mul21]

Wow, they really have completely lost their minds about the gritty, try hard guys in AZ haven't they? That's way more than I would have expected to get for Campana.

[biittner77]

Poorly worded on your first question. I meant to say he could increase the amount of runs scored in a significant way. In other words, runs being at the premium it appears they might be this year along with a seemingly solid pitching staff, the extras scored/created by a guy like Bourn could be significant in terms of games won.

 

On the second, not something I thought about since it's not something readilt available to the Cubs right now. You'd always like to have power at a position that doesn't traditionally have it. Gives you lots of options in filling out your roster.

 

I understood what you were saying but what I meant was how many more runs would Bourn produce due to his speed as opposed to the other options available? In order to use his speed, he has to get on base and juding by his career stats a .350 OBP is about what you could reasonably expect.

 

ASs for the second part, in the short term they *may* have Jackson as that guy. If not, perhaps probably not, the comparison would be Bourne vs Dejesus. In which case Bourne's value lies more in his defense than his ability to score more runs because he is fast.

 

To put it another way, I'd rather take my chances that DeJesus can provide what Bourne does offensively in the short run and hope that one of Jackson, Soler, Almora, etc pan out within 5 years.

[Guest]

http://i.imgur.com/HHIEG8N.jpg