Hoyer on MLB radio this morning

[David]

I figured it could use its own thread given how dead this subforum has been.

 

Stealing a transcript from a commenter on Bleacher Nation.

 

http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/01/03/draft-changes-and-unintended-consequences-and-other-bullets/comment-page-1/#comment-204151

 

Jed Hoyer was just on MLB Network Radio.. Here were his comments, sort of paraphrased. Don’t kill me if I messed up a word or two lol.

 

- As you can expect, saying that the two Scotts were pretty much flyers and Jackson is a “stabilizer.” He’s durable and came up too early. With his athleticism and age, he still has upside.

- “Can’t build it (a franchise) up in one year.” Edwin fit into our plans and was on the market now, so we got him.

- With length of the deal as the question about position players, he said the Cubs are looking at a position player with a ‘similar type of deal’ (As EJax (Michael Bourn?)).

- When asked directly about Bourn – “Can’t comment on individual free agents.” “Center field is a position both short term and long term that we’ll be looking to improve.”

- Said that they’re pretty much done adding pitching, now will focus on position players.

- Looking to mold after the A’s/Orioles and build while contending. Won’t look past any one year, but will focus on making moves that improve the future. Won’t make moves that hurt the future for 2013.

- Asked where he wants to see improvement – Wants to really draw out AB’s and see middle relievers in the 6th and 7th innings. That’s how you “really beat teams up.” Wants teams to feel like it’s a battle to face the Cubs.

- Asked how close prospects are too getting a look this year – “most talented minor leaguers won’t be read for a look.” “organization did a lot of talent over the course of the year.”

 

He repeatedly mentioned how they liked the position player depth in the minors, and were very dry in the pitching department.

 

 

Really seems to sound like he was alluding to Bourn. Could he be referring to anyone else in that way?

 

Also, even a year later, it's so refreshing to hear things like the bold out of our front office.

[UMFan83]

I don't know of any other FAs out there looking for Jackson money that would fit with us. It would be hard to take those quotes as anything other than Bourn.

 

Edit: Also, thanks for sharing

[davell]

We're in good hands, even the hater would be hard pressed to dispute that. But, signing Bourn and trading for Upton, even if you deal Sori for prospects, puts us into contention immediately, in my mind. Edited January 3, 2013 by davell

[Sammy Sofa]

"Haters?" Is Backtobanks cloning himself?

[davell]

"Haters?" Is Backtobanks cloning himself?

Good point. Edited.

[Guest]

Theo also spoke on the radio today (to a Boston station).

 

http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/01/03/theo-epstein-speaks-organizational-changes-draft-pick-compensation-use-of-payroll-rizzo-jackson-more/

 

 

Some snippets of note from Brett's recap:

 

What’s different in the second offseason with a new club: Maybe a little more active. Second Winter is always different, because the first Winter you’re getting to know ins and outs of organization, and the players you have. Now there’s more of a comfort level. We’re also at a slightly different place – still building, but hopefully a year closer to being where we want to be. Can now be a bit more aggressive. (Me: This all squares with an approach that views 2014 as perhaps the opening of the Cubs’ next window, and maybe even shooting for a surprise in 2013. Makes me wonder what’s in store for what’s left of this offseason.)

 

On whether the Cubs would thus avoid pursuing big-time free agents because of the lost pick and associated pool money: I can only answer generally, without speaking about any free agents left on the market. You can’t be dogmatic about it. There are free agents worth surrendering a first round pick, if the contract makes sense.

 

Thoughts on Anthony Rizzo’s development: He’s just about on the path we projected for him, but the remarkable part is how quickly he made a significant adjustment with his swing. He developed a dramatic uphill plane while in San Diego, in large part because of the park. Some folks though he wouldn’t make it because of that. We tried to buy low on him, then, and asked him to make the adjustment at AAA. It was clear as early as Spring Training that he had completely reworked his swing – very rare to do it that quickly and that successfully. He has a chance to be an elite player.

[Banedon]

Another article about that Theo interview...

 

http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2013/01/04/theo-epstein-on-ryan-dempster-changing-a-clubhouse-culture-and-flowers-for-j-d-drews-wife/

[UK1679666180]

It is interesting to see where the game is headed in the near future with the changes in offensive production where the power hitter is becoming less of a supply and greater in demand and the contact hitter is becoming the larger supply whether or not that is becoming the greater bargain.

 

I've gone back and forth with Bourn, but at this point I'd rather platoon Morgan/Sappelt or Jackson in CF and save that cash.

[Sammy Sofa]

For what?

[Cubswin11]

For what?

More McDonalds

[UK1679666180]

For what?

 

On something with a better value, Bourn even in this era is not likely to be worth a 4/5 yr 60+ mil deal, IMO. If he gets around 4 yrs at 10 mil per, I could see that working out for both parties but not at 15 mil per.

 

I'd rather see that cash used long-term to lock up Rizzo, Samardzija, and/or Garza than possibly overspend on Bourn.

 

I'd rather have Morgan at 1/4 than Bourn at 4/15, even before factoring the draft pick.

[Guest]

For what?

 

On something with a better value, Bourn even in this era is not likely to be worth a 4/5 yr 60+ mil deal, IMO. If he gets around 4 yrs at 10 mil per, I could see that working out for both parties but not at 15 mil per.

 

I'd rather see that cash used long-term to lock up Rizzo, Samardzija, and/or Garza than possibly overspend on Bourn.

 

I'd rather have Morgan at 1/4 than Bourn at 4/15, even before factoring the draft pick.

 

I don't love using $/WAR conversions, but you think it's that unlikely that he'll be worth 10-12 WAR over 4 years (much less over 5)?

[UK1679666180]

For what?

 

On something with a better value, Bourn even in this era is not likely to be worth a 4/5 yr 60+ mil deal, IMO. If he gets around 4 yrs at 10 mil per, I could see that working out for both parties but not at 15 mil per.

 

I'd rather see that cash used long-term to lock up Rizzo, Samardzija, and/or Garza than possibly overspend on Bourn.

 

I'd rather have Morgan at 1/4 than Bourn at 4/15, even before factoring the draft pick.

 

I don't love using $/WAR conversions, but you think it's that unlikely that he'll be worth 10-12 WAR over 4 years?

 

No, I think he'll avg 2-4 WAR during those 4 years, I think his 6+ was a fluke, I expect him to be around 4 this 1st year and gradually regress. I also don't think the market is in Bourn's favor right now with no need to get in a bidding war with the M's.

 

But looking at the market, players with his skill set (contact hitters dependent on BABIP and walk rates) are undervalued right now compared to power hitters.

[Guest]

For what?

 

On something with a better value, Bourn even in this era is not likely to be worth a 4/5 yr 60+ mil deal, IMO. If he gets around 4 yrs at 10 mil per, I could see that working out for both parties but not at 15 mil per.

 

I'd rather see that cash used long-term to lock up Rizzo, Samardzija, and/or Garza than possibly overspend on Bourn.

 

I'd rather have Morgan at 1/4 than Bourn at 4/15, even before factoring the draft pick.

 

I don't love using $/WAR conversions, but you think it's that unlikely that he'll be worth 10-12 WAR over 4 years?

 

No, I think he'll avg 2-4 WAR during those 4 years, I think his 6+ was a fluke, I expect him to be around 4 this 1st year and gradually regress. I also don't think the market is in Bourn's favor right now with no need to get in a bidding war with the M's.

 

But looking at the market, players with his skill set (contact hitters dependent on BABIP and walk rates) are undervalued right now compared to power hitters.

 

If you expect him to start out around 4 and be between 2-4 throughout, even if he went, let's say, 4-2-2-2, he'd be at 10... which isn't that bad of an overpay, if at all.

 

If he averages 3, he'd be at 12 (on a 4 year deal), in which case he'd definitely be worth $60M (which is on the high end of what I think he'd get over 4 years).

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Bourn has been at at least 4.7 3 of the last 4 years by both B-R and Fangraphs.

 

Starting him at 4 next year and declining from there is exceedingly pessimistic.

[UK1679666180]

For what?

 

On something with a better value, Bourn even in this era is not likely to be worth a 4/5 yr 60+ mil deal, IMO. If he gets around 4 yrs at 10 mil per, I could see that working out for both parties but not at 15 mil per.

 

I'd rather see that cash used long-term to lock up Rizzo, Samardzija, and/or Garza than possibly overspend on Bourn.

 

I'd rather have Morgan at 1/4 than Bourn at 4/15, even before factoring the draft pick.

 

I don't love using $/WAR conversions, but you think it's that unlikely that he'll be worth 10-12 WAR over 4 years?

 

 

 

No, I think he'll avg 2-4 WAR during those 4 years, I think his 6+ was a fluke, I expect him to be around 4 this 1st year and gradually regress. I also don't think the market is in Bourn's favor right now with no need to get in a bidding war with the M's.

 

But looking at the market, players with his skill set (contact hitters dependent on BABIP and walk rates) are undervalued right now compared to power hitters.

 

If you expect him to start out around 4 and be between 2-4 throughout, even if he went, let's say, 4-2-2-2, he'd be at 10... which isn't that bad of an overpay, if at all.

 

If he averages 3, he'd be at 12 (on a 4 year deal), in which case he'd definitely be worth $60M.

 

Based on that yes, but that doesn't factor market trends or escalating contracts combined with likely regressing production.

 

If lead-off hitters were at a premium and the market had several teams bidding for him, I could see it but not at this current time.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The market is that we need outfielders and he's the only one available on it.

[jersey cubs fan]

Bourn has been at at least 4.7 3 of the last 4 years by both B-R and Fangraphs.

 

Starting him at 4 next year and declining from there is exceedingly pessimistic.

 

Exceedingly? No, not at all.

[UK1679666180]

Bourn has been at at least 4.7 3 of the last 4 years by both B-R and Fangraphs.

 

Starting him at 4 next year and declining from there is exceedingly pessimistic.

 

You're probably right, but it comes down to supply and demand for me and what the market dictates, I don't see why the Cubs should spend market value on a player right now for him.

[UK1679666180]

The market is that we need outfielders and he's the only one available on it.

 

Like I said, I'd take Morgan over Bourn based on what they would likely receive.

Edited January 4, 2013 by UK

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Bourn has been at at least 4.7 3 of the last 4 years by both B-R and Fangraphs.

 

Starting him at 4 next year and declining from there is exceedingly pessimistic.

 

Exceedingly? No, not at all.

 

Yes, yes it is.

 

It's "I don't like the idea of signing the player, so what's a number that is as pessimistic as possible without being completely asburd."

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The market is that we need outfielders and he's the only one available on it.

 

Like I said, I'd take Morgan over Bourn based on what they would likely receive.

 

 

You're overthinking this. Morgan is bad at baseball and Bourn is good at it. We have money, and we should use it to try to get players who are good at baseball.

[UK1679666180]

Bourn has been at at least 4.7 3 of the last 4 years by both B-R and Fangraphs.

 

Starting him at 4 next year and declining from there is exceedingly pessimistic.

 

Exceedingly? No, not at all.

 

Yes, yes it is.

 

It's "I don't like the idea of signing the player, so what's a number that is as pessimistic as possible without being completely asburd."

 

That's not true at all. You're putting words in my mouth.

 

I like the signing of Bourn at 10 mil per for 4 yrs, bump it up to 4/5 yrs at 15 mil per and I don't like the signing.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'm just filling in the gaps. If you have an alternative explanation for how you got 4 and decline from a guy who has consistently been better than that, I'll listen.

[Sammy Sofa]

For what?

 

On something with a better value, Bourn even in this era is not likely to be worth a 4/5 yr 60+ mil deal, IMO. If he gets around 4 yrs at 10 mil per, I could see that working out for both parties but not at 15 mil per.

 

I'd rather see that cash used long-term to lock up Rizzo, Samardzija, and/or Garza than possibly overspend on Bourn.

 

I'd rather have Morgan at 1/4 than Bourn at 4/15, even before factoring the draft pick.

 

Bourn isn't likely to be worth $12 million or $15 million a year for only 4-5 years? Based on what? Are we really just going to act like guys who are largely valued for their speed just fall off of a cliff after they turn 30? Fangraphs has him being worth just about $19 million a year in 2010 and 2011, $29 million last year and $22 million in 2009. We're pretty damn far from a Soriano-type situation where you have the Cubs shelling out seemingly based on a single season for a seriously flawed player.