Hoyer on MLB radio this morning

[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.

 

 

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.

 

It's about production per dollar spent and not having to likely overspend for a player in their mid 30s, given an escalating contract.

 

I'd rather see them take a chance on a player who had 10.5 WAR over the last 4 years at 1yr at compared to 19.1 WAR at 4 years at 15 mil, given the contract differences.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Production/playing time >>>>>>>> Production/$

[UK1679666180]

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.

 

He's been a 4-5 WAR win player 3 out of the last 4 years, with last year being his 6+ likely fluke, it's not hard to explain that he'll duplicate what he has done 3 out of the last 4 years and regress from there as he gets older and ventures further from his prime.

 

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

 

Based on the market... who's left to bid on him the Cubs and the Mariners? Get some real other players at the table and the market changes.

 

Players with his skill-set are undervalued & with no other real bidder in this situation, I don't see why they should meet Boras' demands.

 

Using fangraphs salary calculation doesn't factor community college level economics. If there were 5-6 teams bidding for his services, I could see meeting the demands but there isn't.

 

Soriano had much more demand at the time than Bourn.

[UK1679666180]

Production/playing time >>>>>>>> Production/$

 

Then lets become the Dodgers!

[Sammy Sofa]

Based on the market... who's left to bid on him the Cubs and the Mariners? Get some real other players at the table and the market changes.

 

Players with his skill-set are undervalued & with no other real bidder in this situation, I don't see why they should meet Boras' demands.

 

Using fangraphs salary calculation doesn't factor community college level economics. If there were 5-6 teams bidding for his services, I could see meeting the demands but there isn't.

 

Soriano had much more demand at the time than Bourn.

 

The numbers you're quoting ($12 million per/$15 million per 4/5 years) are hardly unreasonable, so I'm not quite sure why you're talking about like this is some kind of shell game where the Cubs have to play poor and can't swing a deal like that. If Boras wants more than that, of course, walk away, but deals in that range? Why let the Mariners walk away with him? If the Ricketts say they can afford him, great.

[Sammy Sofa]

Production/playing time >>>>>>>> Production/$

 

Then lets become the Dodgers!

 

You say this like that kind of spending power isn't desirable.

[UK1679666180]

Based on the market... who's left to bid on him the Cubs and the Mariners? Get some real other players at the table and the market changes.

 

Players with his skill-set are undervalued & with no other real bidder in this situation, I don't see why they should meet Boras' demands.

 

Using fangraphs salary calculation doesn't factor community college level economics. If there were 5-6 teams bidding for his services, I could see meeting the demands but there isn't.

 

Soriano had much more demand at the time than Bourn.

 

The numbers you're quoting ($12 million per/$15 million per 4/5 years) are hardly unreasonable, so I'm not quite sure why you're talking about like this is some kind of shell game where the Cubs have to play poor and can't swing a deal like that. If Boras wants more than that, of course, walk away, but deals in that range? Why let the Mariners walk away with him? If the Ricketts say they can afford him, great.

 

They don't have to play poor but if they don't have to pay an escalating salary with the avg. being 15 mil per yr., I don't see why they should bid against themselves or against a team likely testing the waters (I'm not sold on Sea being a serious player).

 

I don't think it's an unreasonable contract at 4 at 15 per (I would not like a 5th year) either but I don't think they should overspend when they don't have to and if they want 4 yr at 15 mil and it's the Cubs and M's with Seattle not likely to meet that, then they will overspend based on market inefficiencies rather than player production.

[UK1679666180]

Production/playing time >>>>>>>> Production/$

 

Then lets become the Dodgers!

 

You say this like that kind of spending power isn't desirable.

 

Very desirable, not realistic.

 

Even on a team like the Cubs as much as they need impact players (Bourn would qualify as one) and have payroll flexibility, I want them to be financially sound throughout this process. As much as I sound like a broken record, signing Bourn to a market value contract might not match that compared to other options.

[mul21]

 

I don't think it's an unreasonable contract at 4 at 15 per (I would not like a 5th year) either but I don't think they should overspend when they don't have to and if they want 4 yr at 15 mil and it's the Cubs and M's with Seattle not likely to meet that, then they will overspend based on market inefficiencies rather than player production.

 

Well, if you've read what nearly everyone has posted about Bourn, it's all pretty much been an "I'm okay with a 4yr deal for $50-60 million" kind of consensus. Also, factoring in that the Cubs were really terrible last year, you sometimes have to pay a bit of a premium to get guys to come play for you. If that's the case, fine, they can afford it. And if they've deemed they can take the draft pick/pool money hit, well, they're a lot smarter and more plugged in than me so I'll take their word for it.

[Sammy Sofa]

I don't think it's an unreasonable contract at 4 at 15 per (I would not like a 5th year) either but I don't think they should overspend when they don't have to and if they want 4 yr at 15 mil and it's the Cubs and M's with Seattle not likely to meet that, then they will overspend based on market inefficiencies rather than player production.

 

Of course nobody wants them to overpsend when they don't have to; why would the Cubs simply pay whatever Boras wants if there are no other serious bidders? I'm talking about these deals as if those are what it takes to get him signed with other teams competing. If nobody else will come near those deals, then of course the Cubs shouldn't spend that. That's just common sense and should be assumed.

[Guest]

Is there anyone really saying "I don't care if Bourn won't get as much elsewhere, offer him 4/60 right now cause he's worth it"? Obviously you negotiate as best possible to lower the cost if you can, and if other teams like the M's or Rangers aren't interested enough then that's what will happen.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Production/playing time >>>>>>>> Production/$

 

Then lets become the Dodgers!

 

Wouldn't be that bad of an idea. Perennial Production/$ leaders are the worst teams in the league.

[TarzanJoeWallis]

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.

 

 

Chicago Cubs Online posted a transcript of the appearance.

 

http://chicagocubsonline.com/archives/2013/01/jed-hoyer-talks-cubs-on-mlb-network-radio.php

 

It seems as though the poster on Bleacher Nation wanted to hear that the Cubs were working on a four year deal for Bourn or any other position player, because Hoyer's answer doesn't seem to give that indication to me. He didn't say they weren't after him, but he doesn't say they are.

 

Here is the portion of the transcript that pertains to this topic. TH is Todd Hollandsworth and JH is Jed Hoyer...

 

TH: Jed, I know the argument that would be out there that the state of the franchise is improving it and understanding that 30 pitchers the franchise used last year, obviously, was way too many. Edwin Jackson to me certainly makes some sense. My question to you is this, is there a player out there or is there potentially a player out there, say in the next 12 months or even maybe into next off-season, a player, a position player that you might go in with this type of deal?

 

JH: Yea, I think this off-season we certainly focused a lot on starting pitching, pitching in general. The off-season is not over, for sure, but we were able to improve the pitching staff more certainly than the position player group this off-season mainly because the players we felt best about and the deals we felt best about, so far, were on the pitching side. But we have a lot of work to do offensively. While our pitching staff and lack of depth got a lot the attention last year. I think if you look at our offense there were a lot of things we didn’t do nearly well enough. We certainly need to improve those things and there will be a lot of attention paid to that. One of the reasons we did focus a lot on pitching and made the investment in Edwin because I think organizationally right now, I do think we are stronger on the farm from a position playing standpoint. We need to work to build up our minor league pitching depth. At the big league level, you’re right, I think our offense does need improvement and we will be looking to do that, not only over the next 12 months but certainly well beyond that as well.

 

TH: Jed, not to name names but, well, I’m going to do it anyways because it’s our show and sometimes we do this stuff. Well, like a guy like a Michael Bourn. A lot of people would say that he makes sense for the Cubs. If Edwin Jackson is part of the future, certainly maybe getting into years of accountability, years of expectation for the fan base, couldn’t you make that same argument for say a Michael Bourn fitting with the Cubs?

 

JH: Obviously I can’t comment on individual free agents but certainly centerfield is a position … I think right now we will be playing David DeJesus out there. Certainly he can do it and do it well but he’s a guy that is not a natural centerfielder. He’s a guy that has played a lot more corner outfield in the last few years. So yea, centerfield is a position both short-term and long-term that we will be looking to improve but specifically commenting on Michael Bourn is not something I can do. (Hollandsworth laughed)