Executive Approval Poll - Post Trade Deadline 2014

[Guest]

Hoyer's already hinting about 2016 being the real target, so I don't think we're going to get any 'call-up to smooth the adjustment before 2015' for Baez.

 

Ugh.

 

Is this based on the finding pitchers in the next 18-24 months quote? Or did he say something else?

 

Yeah, that one. That's a pretty big "we'll take what we can get this offseason, but we're not going to get serious about putting together a real, complete roster" signal, imo.

Please don't make me repeat myself.

[Andy]

If we keep Baez and Bryant down until May of next year they aren't attempting to compete and they're prioritizing 2021 over 2015

Baez is especially worrisome/annoying to me. Bryant is a Boras client so I can understand thinking there's no chance of a team-friendly deal there, but is there any indication we couldn't get Baez signed to a Rizzo/Castro deal if we tried? Why play the service-time game with him then?

[Guest]

If we keep Baez and Bryant down until May of next year they aren't attempting to compete and they're prioritizing 2021 over 2015

 

They should want the full year of Bryant at 29 and Baez at 28 more than making their 2015s slightly better, it's an enormous benefit with little sacrificed. Even in the most extreme example of parity you can come up with between them and their placeholders, it's costing the 2015 a single win to gain tens of millions of value. And Valbuena is good enough that one of Baez/Bryant won't be filling a 'hole' anyway.

[Sammy Sofa]

Why are you so convinced they won't be able to get Baez into a team-friendly deal?

[Guest]

If we keep Baez and Bryant down until May of next year they aren't attempting to compete and they're prioritizing 2021 over 2015

Baez is especially worrisome/annoying to me. Bryant is a Boras client so I can understand thinking there's no chance of a team-friendly deal there, but is there any indication we couldn't get Baez signed to a Rizzo/Castro deal if we tried? Why play the service-time game with him then?

 

Baez's FA year matters even if you sign him to an extension.

[Andy]

If we keep Baez and Bryant down until May of next year they aren't attempting to compete and they're prioritizing 2021 over 2015

Baez is especially worrisome/annoying to me. Bryant is a Boras client so I can understand thinking there's no chance of a team-friendly deal there, but is there any indication we couldn't get Baez signed to a Rizzo/Castro deal if we tried? Why play the service-time game with him then?

 

Baez's FA year matters even if you sign him to an extension.

Neither become FAs until after all our TV rights are up. If they really think Baez isn't ready yet, fine, I can buy it, I guess, but we don't play in Tampa Bay or Oakland, for God's sake. His FA year shouldn't matter that much.

[bukie]

Hoyer's already hinting about 2016 being the real target, so I don't think we're going to get any 'call-up to smooth the adjustment before 2015' for Baez.

 

Ugh.

You take it as sandbagging 2015, I take it as eyeing a specific acquisition that isn't a FA until the 2015 offseason.

 

Oh good; they're laser-sighted in on the one guy they want and if they don't get him then they have this awesome track record of backup plans that worked out (or even existed at all).

You are either having some serious reading comprehension issues tonight, or you just feel the need to intentionally misread things in an effort to complain because it just makes you feel better about things.

[Guest]

It's about duration, not dollars. The later that FA date is, the better a chance you have to get to an ideal amount of team control. Using Rizzo as an example, he has 2 team options, so he'll be an FA after turning 29, 30, or 31, whichever is most convenient for the Cubs. That's ideal because the odds are not high that the Cubs would want to pour huge FA dollars into Rizzo's age 32+ seasons, but that decision gets a lot muddier if he were an FA at 28 or 29. In the same way, if you can buy out a year or a year and an option or whatever of Javy's free agency, you capture the best part of successfully developing a player by limiting the downside. It's a very real benefit and worth the (very minor) hit to 2015 to capture, especially given the non-zero chance that Baez has enough confidence in himself to force himself to FA ASAP, Samardzija style.

[SouthSideRyan]

If we keep Baez and Bryant down until May of next year they aren't attempting to compete and they're prioritizing 2021 over 2015

 

They should want the full year of Bryant at 29 and Baez at 28 more than making their 2015s slightly better, it's an enormous benefit with little sacrificed. Even in the most extreme example of parity you can come up with between them and their placeholders, it's costing the 2015 a single win to gain tens of millions of value. And Valbuena is good enough that one of Baez/Bryant won't be filling a 'hole' anyway.

 

If signing Baez and Bryant in 2021 is an issue then PTR has failed beyond even my wildest dreams.

[Sammy Sofa]

Hoyer's already hinting about 2016 being the real target, so I don't think we're going to get any 'call-up to smooth the adjustment before 2015' for Baez.

 

Ugh.

You take it as sandbagging 2015, I take it as eyeing a specific acquisition that isn't a FA until the 2015 offseason.

 

Oh good; they're laser-sighted in on the one guy they want and if they don't get him then they have this awesome track record of backup plans that worked out (or even existed at all).

You are either having some serious reading comprehension issues tonight, or you just feel the need to intentionally misread things in an effort to complain because it just makes you feel better about things.

 

I'm just explaining the reality of the situation based on their past efforts when it comes to eyeing specific FA acquisitions.

[SouthSideRyan]

It's about duration, not dollars. The later that FA date is, the better a chance you have to get to an ideal amount of team control. Using Rizzo as an example, he has 2 team options, so he'll be an FA after turning 29, 30, or 31, whichever is most convenient for the Cubs. That's ideal because the odds are not high that the Cubs would want to pour huge FA dollars into Rizzo's age 32+ seasons, but that decision gets a lot muddier if he were an FA at 28 or 29. In the same way, if you can buy out a year or a year and an option or whatever of Javy's free agency, you capture the best part of successfully developing a player by limiting the downside. It's a very real benefit and worth the (very minor) hit to 2015 to capture, especially given the non-zero chance that Baez has enough confidence in himself to force himself to FA ASAP, Samardzija style.

 

So what, we just let them walk after that?

[Aaron_Kennelly]

It's about duration, not dollars. The later that FA date is, the better a chance you have to get to an ideal amount of team control. Using Rizzo as an example, he has 2 team options, so he'll be an FA after turning 29, 30, or 31, whichever is most convenient for the Cubs. That's ideal because the odds are not high that the Cubs would want to pour huge FA dollars into Rizzo's age 32+ seasons, but that decision gets a lot muddier if he were an FA at 28 or 29. In the same way, if you can buy out a year or a year and an option or whatever of Javy's free agency, you capture the best part of successfully developing a player by limiting the downside. It's a very real benefit and worth the (very minor) hit to 2015 to capture, especially given the non-zero chance that Baez has enough confidence in himself to force himself to FA ASAP, Samardzija style.

 

So what, we just let them walk after that?

 

The Yankess did with Cano, and they aren't very cheap.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

You guys are looking at it all wrong.

 

The sooner we start burning through service time on these guys, the sooner we can let them go via free agency and get those sweet, sweet comp picks.

[Guest]

It's about duration, not dollars. The later that FA date is, the better a chance you have to get to an ideal amount of team control. Using Rizzo as an example, he has 2 team options, so he'll be an FA after turning 29, 30, or 31, whichever is most convenient for the Cubs. That's ideal because the odds are not high that the Cubs would want to pour huge FA dollars into Rizzo's age 32+ seasons, but that decision gets a lot muddier if he were an FA at 28 or 29. In the same way, if you can buy out a year or a year and an option or whatever of Javy's free agency, you capture the best part of successfully developing a player by limiting the downside. It's a very real benefit and worth the (very minor) hit to 2015 to capture, especially given the non-zero chance that Baez has enough confidence in himself to force himself to FA ASAP, Samardzija style.

 

So what, we just let them walk after that?

 

I'm not saying you plan on letting them walk, that actual decision is so many years an so many other factors away it's silly to try and predict. What I'm saying is that no matter what the factors are, that decision will always be simpler if they're hitting FA at 30 or 31 rather than 28.

[Aaron_Kennelly]

The benefit is multi-layered, too. On top of all the things tiger mentioned, it also helps when you are buying out years if you are buying out, say, 5 years instead of 4. And, extending a player's controlled years through his most productive ages is so much more important than getting him up while he is 21 or 22 for a few more AB's. There is so much value monetarily, and in value that they produce on the field for you. And it might cost us a win, at most, for like a month... when we have Ruggiano, Coghlan and Valbuena already on the roster.

[Guest]

I was thinking about this the other day. I've seen it argued (not that I disagree) that the reason teams will wait a month rather than the actual 9 days or whatever to call someone up is so that it's not so obvious and you aren't calling the guy up less than 2 weeks after the season starts.

 

If Baez gets 3 weeks or so this year and then goes to AAA and is still called up in May (same as he would be if you waited til next year - and still gets the extra year of control), is it still "too obvious?"

 

I mean, we called up Rizzo like 2 days after we got the extra year, right?

[sneakypower]

it's a tangential point now, but people earlier in this discussion (and in others) who are framing failures to compete in '12 as the FO's willful or purposeful tanking seem so hilariously divorced from the confines of reality

 

the new FO inherited a 91-loss team, saw the payroll cut by $25M and the internal options at their disposal (Brett Jackson, Josh Vitters, Bryan LaHair, Steve Clevenger, Chris Rusin, [Marwin Gonzalez, Ryan Flaherty, DJ LeMahieu]) all went on to combine for minus-1.6 fWAR

 

 

reasonable expections, to be sure

"the team i'm giving you really sucks already, and i'm slashing your budget, and using the guys from the minors will only make you worse"

 

"but i'd still like you to compete"

Edited August 4, 2014 by sneakypower

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Good effort. Now justify away the other two years, too.

[Sammy Sofa]

I would have settled for "not horrible" and "working towards improving" while somehow magically using the sorcery other teams have used to build their farm system without tanking.

[sneakypower]

Good effort. Now justify away the other two years, too.

 

that all boils down to personal opinion, based on how much nuanced thought and reasoning you're willing to commit to the exercise; i'm not really interested in that argument at this time

 

but i mostly assume somebody making the accusation that '12 was voluntary suckitude is doing so with the main intent of losing my respect for their opinions in general

Edited August 4, 2014 by sneakypower

[Aaron_Kennelly]

it's a tangential point now, but people earlier in this discussion (and in others) who are framing failures to compete in '12 as the FO's willful or purposeful tanking seem so hilariously divorced from the confines of reality

 

the new FO inherited a 91-loss team, saw the payroll cut by $25M and the internal options at their disposal (Brett Jackson, Josh Vitters, Bryan LaHair, Steve Clevenger, Chris Rusin, [Marwin Gonzalez, Ryan Flaherty, DJ LeMahieu]) all went on to combine for minus-1.6 fWAR

 

 

reasonable expections, to be sure

"the team i'm giving you really sucks already, and i'm slashing your budget, and using the guys from the minors will only make you worse"

 

"but i'd still like you to compete"

 

That last line should continue, "... just enough to win 79 games and still not have any playoff hopes, and then be deprived of Albert Almora (eh), Kris Bryant, and Kyle Schwarber + three high school arms with good upside."

[Sammy Sofa]

doing so with the main intent of losing my respect for their opinions in general

 

This is good [expletive]. This is the [expletive] that I want.

[Sammy Sofa]

it's a tangential point now, but people earlier in this discussion (and in others) who are framing failures to compete in '12 as the FO's willful or purposeful tanking seem so hilariously divorced from the confines of reality

 

the new FO inherited a 91-loss team, saw the payroll cut by $25M and the internal options at their disposal (Brett Jackson, Josh Vitters, Bryan LaHair, Steve Clevenger, Chris Rusin, [Marwin Gonzalez, Ryan Flaherty, DJ LeMahieu]) all went on to combine for minus-1.6 fWAR

 

 

reasonable expections, to be sure

"the team i'm giving you really sucks already, and i'm slashing your budget, and using the guys from the minors will only make you worse"

 

"but i'd still like you to compete"

 

That last line should continue, "... just enough to win 79 games and still not have any playoff hopes, and then be deprived of Albert Almora (eh), Kris Bryant, and Kyle Schwarber + three high school arms with good upside."

 

Thank goodness we dodged the terrible drafting they did in Boston.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Good effort. Now justify away the other two years, too.

 

that all boils down to personal opinion, based on how much nuanced thought and reasoning you're willing to commit to the exercise; i'm not really interested in that argument at this time

 

but i mostly assume somebody making the accusation that '12 was voluntary suckitude is doing so with the main intent of losing my respect for their opinions in general

 

All I hear is "oh man, it would have been hard to put together a good team. That makes it OK that they made so many bad decisions."

[Aaron_Kennelly]

it's a tangential point now, but people earlier in this discussion (and in others) who are framing failures to compete in '12 as the FO's willful or purposeful tanking seem so hilariously divorced from the confines of reality

 

the new FO inherited a 91-loss team, saw the payroll cut by $25M and the internal options at their disposal (Brett Jackson, Josh Vitters, Bryan LaHair, Steve Clevenger, Chris Rusin, [Marwin Gonzalez, Ryan Flaherty, DJ LeMahieu]) all went on to combine for minus-1.6 fWAR

 

 

reasonable expections, to be sure

"the team i'm giving you really sucks already, and i'm slashing your budget, and using the guys from the minors will only make you worse"

 

"but i'd still like you to compete"

 

That last line should continue, "... just enough to win 79 games and still not have any playoff hopes, and then be deprived of Albert Almora (eh), Kris Bryant, and Kyle Schwarber + three high school arms with good upside."

 

Thank goodness we dodged the terrible drafting they did in Boston.

 

... under a different draft system, when they could throw a bunch of money at the draft and get a lot of good, lesser talents and some eventually turned out really good.