The Cuban Defectors Thread

[A New Era]

this cocky mfer probably would've demanded health insurance as part of his deal. glad we passed.

 

I don't understand why anyone would defect from Cuba when healthcare is free there.

 

When you make $70 million you can buy healthcare and have a few bucks left over.

[WrigleyField 22]

who specifically are the inevitable failures?

This might be the dumbest thing asked on here since Da Bum left

it's misguided to keep repeating that some of these prospects are sure to fail with the implication veterans are comparatively a sure thing; it's a point that's needlessly belabored

 

it's been said before, but it warrants repeating that "minor league batting statistics will predict major league batting performance with essentially the same reliability as previous major league statistics"

 

so let's talk about the veterans who'll flame out, too, like Schierholtz, Jackson, Sweeney, etc. have

Well there's truth to that but I don't think the actual projections are gonna be as rosey as "plug in all the prospects". Some will be worse one will be better, some on the money. However as long as the alternatives they replace are generally worse we should use the resources we have like money and improve the offense more. But there's a generally growing feeling from fans that would don't need good hitters (or even potentially good ones like Castillo) because our lineup is "full". But I still project a Sczur or Reed Johnson like vet in our roster when I'd gladly bump everyone down one. Same rule applies to pitchers but we have more depth, even if it lacks the high end potential. But with our FO track record and the injury risk of pitchers I wouldn't keep putting big FA resources into pitching after two guys, which again still leaves money to play with. There's too much available funds for people to scoff at hitting just because our first wave happens to be here.

[Guest]

If you can tell me who is scoffing at the idea of adding hitting, I won't call your entire argument a strawman.

[WrigleyField 22]

Rob is the best example in this thread. May have to look at other threads to fine more examples (perhaps 2015 lineup thread?). Will report back.

[Guest]

Rob is the best example in this thread. May have to look at other threads to fine more examples (perhaps 2015 lineup thread?). Will report back.

The first two posts of Rob's I could find he explicitly says he's not against a Castillo signing. (I believe it was page 17 or 18).

 

Well, one of the two explicitly says that. The other says he'd be surprised if we are the high bidders due to the presence of the other guys. Still not scoffing at the idea of signing offense, though.

[Deeg]

Eh, not overly bummed with missed out at that price. He's already a little older and the price seemed to have been bumped up due to a Puig/Abreu premium with how those guys came into the league, while by most accounts he isn't on their level. I'd rather go after Markakis or Melky for less money likely or Tomas if we are spending this kind of money on a Cuban guy.

 

Yeah, I'd prefer the guy with more power who is 4 years younger.

At this rate, Tomas will probably get $70-80 million.

 

That's way, way low. Based on Castillo's signing Tomas should break the $100 million mark.

 

I think it's pretty funny that people are declaring this a horrendous overpay without seeing Castillo playing an inning of pro ball. How the hell does anyone know what he's capable of? The ones who can make the best guess are the scouts, and they're the ones who advised Boston to make this offer. They had competition, and they aren't a stupid bunch. I'm not devastated to lose out, but I'm not remotely convinced Boston made a mistake.

 

I disagree with those saying offense shouldn't be a priority, because it's very likely all of our young hitters will take at least a couple of seasons before they emerge as plus offensive players, if they do at all, and it's absolutely essential the Cubs add a veteran everyday player who can should some of the offensive burden.

 

It's fine to approach every FA situation by saying "I'm going to set a value at what I think the guy is worth, and not a penny more" until you get to the fact that you'll never end up signing a desirable FA that way. Sounds great as a rah-rah statement - in practice, it gets you nowhere. The market dictates what a player is worth, not one GMs abstract judgment. What needs to happen is for the FO to decide not what they think every FAs value is and not budge, but to decide which FAs are worth overpaying for and resolve not to miss out on them. It doesn't have to be a lot or the most expensive of them, but at some point it has to be somebody and until it is, you're a small-market team.

[Guest]

Eh, not overly bummed with missed out at that price. He's already a little older and the price seemed to have been bumped up due to a Puig/Abreu premium with how those guys came into the league, while by most accounts he isn't on their level. I'd rather go after Markakis or Melky for less money likely or Tomas if we are spending this kind of money on a Cuban guy.

 

Yeah, I'd prefer the guy with more power who is 4 years younger.

At this rate, Tomas will probably get $70-80 million.

 

That's way, way low. Based on Castillo's signing Tomas should break the $100 million mark.

 

I think it's pretty funny that people are declaring this a horrendous overpay without seeing Castillo playing an inning of pro ball. How the hell does anyone know what he's capable of? The ones who can make the best guess are the scouts, and they're the ones who advised Boston to make this offer. They had competition, and they aren't a stupid bunch. I'm not devastated to lose out, but I'm not remotely convinced Boston made a mistake.

 

I disagree with those saying offense shouldn't be a priority, because it's very likely all of our young hitters will take at least a couple of seasons before they emerge as plus offensive players, if they do at all, and it's absolutely essential the Cubs add a veteran everyday player who can should some of the offensive burden.

 

It's fine to approach every FA situation by saying "I'm going to set a value at what I think the guy is worth, and not a penny more" until you get to the fact that you'll never end up signing a desirable FA that way. Sounds great as a rah-rah statement - in practice, it gets you nowhere. The market dictates what a player is worth, not one GMs abstract judgment. What needs to happen is for the FO to decide not what they think every FAs value is and not budge, but to decide which FAs are worth overpaying for and resolve not to miss out on them. It doesn't have to be a lot or the most expensive of them, but at some point it has to be somebody and until it is, you're a small-market team.

I'd love to sell you stuff that you want.

[Deeg]

I'd love to sell you stuff that you want.

 

Falling back on mockery is certainly easier than answering, isn't it?

[WrigleyField 22]

Okay it's not scoffing but definitely too much contentment with an all prospecty lineup. The 2015 lineup thread, in between Sulley's Castro/Hammels trade has a lot of homegrown lineups thrown out with no real mention of FA or trades. At this point not automatically including a FA on projections is severely overrating our current hitters. Sure it could still happen that we don't sign a FA hitter because of value issues but the message board offseason predictions don't usually include just missing on guys. And this good gem from that thread.

 

The way I look at our prospects, if a couple reach production on a Rizzo level and a couple reach Castro level, I'd be super pleased. I know it looks weird and I hope my point is getting across, but tell me if you think a lineup with this kind ofproduction would be an NL favorite or not:

 

LF Castillo :beg:

SS Castro

1B Rizzo

3B Rizzo

RF Rizzo

2B Castro

CF Castro

C Castillo

 

Sure it doesn't outright state he thinks that's gonna happen but people are still talking about how awesome Alcontara is going to be and he hasn't done much after his first few weeks.

[Guest]

I'd love to sell you stuff that you want.

 

Falling back on mockery is certainly easier than answering, isn't it?

Fine...

 

Going into any negotiation, each party should have a clear understanding of the boundary of what they find an acceptable price for the product / service being offered. The fault of the front office is most certainly not that they have a number beyond which they will not exceed. That is actually essential to proper negotiating so that you do not let yourself get carried away because you "have to have it at all costs".

 

The proper way to approach each FA is to look at the opportunity cost of doing and not doing an individual deal. Doing a deal has an opportunity cost of not being able to do other deals, whereas not doing a deal obviously has the cost of not retaining the services of that particular player. It comes down to having an overall strategy in place so that you can either do a deal that makes sense within the framework or have an alternative if you decide to walk away.

 

What the Cubs have done is to put in place a plan in case they do not feel a player is worth the price being paid by another team. Up to now, that plan has been to sell the public on a rebuilding process. Going forward, the walk away plan includes giving time to tremendously talented but raw players. That means that we may not be willing to offer as much for a player like Castillo where we have other options in house, but the presence of those options at those positions means we may be willing to offer more for a player such as Lester.

 

I would hope that we are approaching a position with the payroll and the budget that there is more flexibility to pursue high end free agents. Since the amount that makes sense for the team to offer depends not only on the player but the circumstances of the team. Those circumstances have changed, so I expect the amounts they are willing to offer to change accordingly. As I stated above, if they do not change this offseason I will be upset.

 

 

 

But yes, it was much easier to give the flippant response than to type all that out.

[WrigleyField 22]

I think it'd be silly to count on all our young guys. Go sign this guy and anyone not named Rizzo can take an occasional day off if everyone hits expectations. It's hard to see all of our available money being taken up by FA pitchers.

 

Valbuena and Coghlan/Ruggiano have each been 2+ win players at positions there is a potential need for next season. I'm on board with adding another bat, but the depth is there now to hedge against a prospect falling flat or an injury or two.

Nothing to controversial here, but we still only go about 10 deep on hitters, so Coghlan/Ruggianio isn't enough backup for me.

 

I've never really seen us as likely bidders for Castillo. Signing him would push Valbuena to the bench when Bryant comes up. And Castillo is very unlikely to be worth $60M+ more than Valbuena.

 

The only good reason I see to sign Castillo is to make Alcantara available as the centerpiece to a trade this offseason. To that end, I could support it. But since I have very little clue what kind of player Castillo really is, I have no idea what contract he'd have to get in order for me to feel comfortable with that plan more than the alternatives.

It can't be much clearer he is worried about pushing guys out of the lineup.

 

We need an OFer. I prefer him based on age and his ability to play multiple positions. We've got plenty of money to spend too, so that's not an excuse. The FA market is awful, basically Melky or Markakis, if Baltimore lets him get away. I'd take the risk here, money be damned.

 

Yeah, I fail to see the craaaaaaazy part of that previous statement. 55Mil+, assuming for 5 years is about what I expected. If it's only 4 years, that's still doable. Probably going to pay someone lesser similar annually (maybe not as many years) if they sign an OF.

doubtful

 

Bryant* / Contra / Soler

 

 

*Ruggiano / Coghlan til May

That's in response to "signing an OF" Can't sign an OF cuz were gonna move our 3B top prospect to LF (not sure if to save Valbuena's coveted role or for the AA prospect)

 

2015 lineup thread as stated has other similar stuff.

Edited August 23, 2014 by WrigleyField 22

[SouthSideRyan]

Eh, not overly bummed with missed out at that price. He's already a little older and the price seemed to have been bumped up due to a Puig/Abreu premium with how those guys came into the league, while by most accounts he isn't on their level. I'd rather go after Markakis or Melky for less money likely or Tomas if we are spending this kind of money on a Cuban guy.

 

Yeah, I'd prefer the guy with more power who is 4 years younger.

At this rate, Tomas will probably get $70-80 million.

 

That's way, way low. Based on Castillo's signing Tomas should break the $100 million mark.

 

I think it's pretty funny that people are declaring this a horrendous overpay without seeing Castillo playing an inning of pro ball. How the hell does anyone know what he's capable of? The ones who can make the best guess are the scouts, and they're the ones who advised Boston to make this offer. They had competition, and they aren't a stupid bunch. I'm not devastated to lose out, but I'm not remotely convinced Boston made a mistake.

 

I disagree with those saying offense shouldn't be a priority, because it's very likely all of our young hitters will take at least a couple of seasons before they emerge as plus offensive players, if they do at all, and it's absolutely essential the Cubs add a veteran everyday player who can should some of the offensive burden.

 

It's fine to approach every FA situation by saying "I'm going to set a value at what I think the guy is worth, and not a penny more" until you get to the fact that you'll never end up signing a desirable FA that way. Sounds great as a rah-rah statement - in practice, it gets you nowhere. The market dictates what a player is worth, not one GMs abstract judgment. What needs to happen is for the FO to decide not what they think every FAs value is and not budge, but to decide which FAs are worth overpaying for and resolve not to miss out on them. It doesn't have to be a lot or the most expensive of them, but at some point it has to be somebody and until it is, you're a small-market team.

I'd love to sell you stuff that you want.

 

Real life as baseball fail

[Guest]

Okay it's not scoffing but definitely too much contentment with an all prospecty lineup. The 2015 lineup thread, in between Sulley's Castro/Hammels trade has a lot of homegrown lineups thrown out with no real mention of FA or trades. At this point not automatically including a FA on projections is severely overrating our current hitters. Sure it could still happen that we don't sign a FA hitter because of value issues but the message board offseason predictions don't usually include just missing on guys. And this good gem from that thread.

 

The way I look at our prospects, if a couple reach production on a Rizzo level and a couple reach Castro level, I'd be super pleased. I know it looks weird and I hope my point is getting across, but tell me if you think a lineup with this kind ofproduction would be an NL favorite or not:

 

LF Castillo :beg:

SS Castro

1B Rizzo

3B Rizzo

RF Rizzo

2B Castro

CF Castro

C Castillo

 

Sure it doesn't outright state he thinks that's gonna happen but people are still talking about how awesome Alcontara is going to be and he hasn't done much after his first few weeks.

I'm pretty sure that very post you quoted was :begging: to sign Castillo. I don't think that person was hoping for Welington Castillo's productivity out of LF.

[WrigleyField 22]

Okay it's not scoffing but definitely too much contentment with an all prospecty lineup. The 2015 lineup thread, in between Sulley's Castro/Hammels trade has a lot of homegrown lineups thrown out with no real mention of FA or trades. At this point not automatically including a FA on projections is severely overrating our current hitters. Sure it could still happen that we don't sign a FA hitter because of value issues but the message board offseason predictions don't usually include just missing on guys. And this good gem from that thread.

 

The way I look at our prospects, if a couple reach production on a Rizzo level and a couple reach Castro level, I'd be super pleased. I know it looks weird and I hope my point is getting across, but tell me if you think a lineup with this kind ofproduction would be an NL favorite or not:

 

LF Castillo :beg:

SS Castro

1B Rizzo

3B Rizzo

RF Rizzo

2B Castro

CF Castro

C Castillo

 

Sure it doesn't outright state he thinks that's gonna happen but people are still talking about how awesome Alcontara is going to be and he hasn't done much after his first few weeks.

I'm pretty sure that very post you quoted was :begging: to sign Castillo. I don't think that person was hoping for Welington Castillo's productivity out of LF.

Ha missed that part in between hoping Alcantara, Javy, Soler, and Bryant to be Castro and Rizzo clones.

 

Of course that lineup would be a favorite because we'd have three of the top four HR hitters in the NL plus a bunch more 700+ ops guys. And that's apparently what stands for super pleased. Maybe this dudes just really dull but I'd be super pleased if those prospects were 2013 Castro and Rizzo and I'm pretty sure he's talking 2014 versions. If they were 2014 versions... I don't even know if there are words.

[Guest]

I've never really seen us as likely bidders for Castillo. Signing him would push Valbuena to the bench when Bryant comes up. And Castillo is very unlikely to be worth $60M+ more than Valbuena.

 

The only good reason I see to sign Castillo is to make Alcantara available as the centerpiece to a trade this offseason. To that end, I could support it. But since I have very little clue what kind of player Castillo really is, I have no idea what contract he'd have to get in order for me to feel comfortable with that plan more than the alternatives.

It can't be much clearer he is worried about pushing guys out of the lineup.

I'll pick on this one.

 

It's pretty clear that he is more worried about what Castillo's level of production is going to be than pushing specific players out of the lineup. He specifically says he could support signing Castillo if the idea is to make Alcantara available in a trade, but isn't sure that Castillo's production will make that worthwhile.

 

Otherwise, he is saying the most likely scenario for 2015 is that Alcantara is in CF and Castillo would be in a corner. When Bryant would come up in May, he is suggesting that it would push Valbuena to the bench. He is specifically questioning whether Castillo's production would be > Valbuena's plus whatever we could get for $60M.

 

Now, I could point out that there are two corner OF's and the only way Bryant would have to push Valbuena to the bench given the presence of a FA OF is if Bryant takes one corner and the other is taken by Soler or the Coghlan/Ruggiano platoon. But this comes back to TT's point that the platoon and Valbuena have both been productive positions for the Cubs this year. Having them in place as veteran options mitigates the benefit of signing any additional offensive FA's.

 

I'm not against acquiring an OF (which seems the obvious choice), but if we are going to lock down a position I would hope that we'd go big with the acquisition instead of getting someone just for veterany goodness.

[WrigleyField 22]

I've never really seen us as likely bidders for Castillo. Signing him would push Valbuena to the bench when Bryant comes up. And Castillo is very unlikely to be worth $60M+ more than Valbuena.

 

The only good reason I see to sign Castillo is to make Alcantara available as the centerpiece to a trade this offseason. To that end, I could support it. But since I have very little clue what kind of player Castillo really is, I have no idea what contract he'd have to get in order for me to feel comfortable with that plan more than the alternatives.

It can't be much clearer he is worried about pushing guys out of the lineup.

I'll pick on this one.

 

It's pretty clear that he is more worried about what Castillo's level of production is going to be than pushing specific players out of the lineup. He specifically says he could support signing Castillo if the idea is to make Alcantara available in a trade, but isn't sure that Castillo's production will make that worthwhile.

 

Otherwise, he is saying the most likely scenario for 2015 is that Alcantara is in CF and Castillo would be in a corner. When Bryant would come up in May, he is suggesting that it would push Valbuena to the bench. He is specifically questioning whether Castillo's production would be > Valbuena's plus whatever we could get for $60M.

 

Now, I could point out that there are two corner OF's and the only way Bryant would have to push Valbuena to the bench given the presence of a FA OF is if Bryant takes one corner and the other is taken by Soler or the Coghlan/Ruggiano platoon. But this comes back to TT's point that the platoon and Valbuena have both been productive positions for the Cubs this year. Having them in place as veteran options mitigates the benefit of signing any additional offensive FA's.

 

I'm not against acquiring an OF (which seems the obvious choice), but if we are going to lock down a position I would hope that we'd go big with the acquisition instead of getting someone just for veterany goodness.

Signing Castillo or whoever doesn't lock you in anywhere either though. There's only 3-4 guys that really absolutely should and realistically I expect to get 600+ PA. Bryant will likely be held down, Soler has an injury history, I don't trust Coghlans run this year. Ruggianio is a platoon guy IMO, and Alcantara and Valbuena aren't good enough to pass up other good hitters ($60M or whatever be damned because there is no foreseeable budget crunch). That leaves Javy, Castro and Rizzo who are locks for PA.

 

And I'm not about "veterany goodness". As stated Castillo isn't an MLB veteran. I am about adding to our options and there isn't too much plausibility in not having the resources to do so.

Edited August 23, 2014 by WrigleyField 22

[WrigleyField 22]

Also I'll just say again being "not opposed" to a OF is not enough. With our resources and current projected lineup it should be a top priority just like getting a FA SP (or two). If you're simply "not opposed" you're basically opposed.

[Deeg]

I'd love to sell you stuff that you want.

 

Falling back on mockery is certainly easier than answering, isn't it?

Fine...

 

Going into any negotiation, each party should have a clear understanding of the boundary of what they find an acceptable price for the product / service being offered. The fault of the front office is most certainly not that they have a number beyond which they will not exceed. That is actually essential to proper negotiating so that you do not let yourself get carried away because you "have to have it at all costs".

 

The proper way to approach each FA is to look at the opportunity cost of doing and not doing an individual deal. Doing a deal has an opportunity cost of not being able to do other deals, whereas not doing a deal obviously has the cost of not retaining the services of that particular player. It comes down to having an overall strategy in place so that you can either do a deal that makes sense within the framework or have an alternative if you decide to walk away.

 

What the Cubs have done is to put in place a plan in case they do not feel a player is worth the price being paid by another team. Up to now, that plan has been to sell the public on a rebuilding process. Going forward, the walk away plan includes giving time to tremendously talented but raw players. That means that we may not be willing to offer as much for a player like Castillo where we have other options in house, but the presence of those options at those positions means we may be willing to offer more for a player such as Lester.

 

I would hope that we are approaching a position with the payroll and the budget that there is more flexibility to pursue high end free agents. Since the amount that makes sense for the team to offer depends not only on the player but the circumstances of the team. Those circumstances have changed, so I expect the amounts they are willing to offer to change accordingly. As I stated above, if they do not change this offseason I will be upset.

 

 

 

But yes, it was much easier to give the flippant response than to type all that out.

 

There - was that so hard?

 

The issue for me isn't Castillo, but philosophy. And my point is, sooner or later you have to accept the realities of how the free agency process works or accept trying to win like the Royals or Pirates forever. That's not to say the Cubs won't - but until they do, I don't think any assumptions to the contrary are justified.

 

If you don't plan to write off 2015 as another tank season, the process has to change this winter. I don't think that means going all-in on Lester, even if he goes to 7 years and 175 million. But maybe it's accepting that to get Kenta Maeda, you'll have to pay more than you think he should get. The problem is the FA market for OF is, as we know, terrible. So does that mean radically overpaying for a mediocre player? Trading blue chippers for a better one? In that context maybe 12 million for Castillo doesn't sound so bad.

[Guest]

Also I'll just say again being "not opposed" to a OF is not enough. With our resources and current projected lineup it should be a top priority just like getting a FA SP (or two). If you're simply "not opposed" you're basically opposed.

I find your logic illogical.

[WrigleyField 22]

Also I'll just say again being "not opposed" to a OF is not enough. With our resources and current projected lineup it should be a top priority just like getting a FA SP (or two). If you're simply "not opposed" you're basically opposed.

I find your logic illogical.

Its like someone who says they're not opposed to some political thing when its so obviously the right that by not being for it is just another way to be against but in an attempt to not looking like a horrible person for being outright against it.

[sneakypower]

people are still talking about how awesome Alcontara is going to be and he hasn't done much after his first few weeks.

during the same time-frame you're referencing, Josh Harrison has been the best player in baseball (and Ryan Braun one of the 5-worst); it's not a terribly useful sample size

 

projection systems still like him, and scouts still like him...sometimes players slump

[WrigleyField 22]

people are still talking about how awesome Alcontara is going to be and he hasn't done much after his first few weeks.

during the same time-frame you're referencing, Josh Harrison has been the best player in baseball (and Ryan Braun one of the 5-worst); it's not a terribly useful sample size

 

projection systems still like him, and scouts still like him...sometimes players slump

I see some basically replacement level projections and a 7%/27% BB/K rate in 172 PA.

[sneakypower]

from a month ago, but his wOBA projection's only dropped by .004

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-top-10-prospects-currently-by-projected-war-3/

 

a full-season of his current ZiPS still amounts to a 2 win pace

Edited August 23, 2014 by sneakypower

[Sammy Sofa]

He's just a pup; someone with a nickname like "Al Contra" will succeed.

[WrigleyField 22]

from a month ago, but his wOBA projection's only dropped by .004

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-top-10-prospects-currently-by-projected-war-3/

 

a full-season of his current ZiPS still amounts to a 2 win pace

Is Zips® the right projection to use for this purpose over Zips(U)?