Article: The Cubs and the Vice of Patience

[Stratos]

3 hours ago, Brandon Glick said:

It's also worth noting that the way the MLB is currently constructed (via the CBA) is that teams like the Cubs are EXPECTED to spend big. The small market teams get compensation draft picks, extra international signing bonus pools, revenue sharing dollars, etc. The Cubs are actively putting themselves at a disadvantage by not spending. 

The Cubs should be spending as much on total payroll as possible, so if they don't at least spend up near to the CBT line I totally agree.  Total spending is different than how they spend, however.

[Rcal10]

7 hours ago, Stratos said:

My point was just that Jed has a lot of options so he has the luxury of being flexible.

I don't agree with the "go get your guy even if overpaying".  At the end of the day, every player has a n inherent value determined by the Cubs, and they need to numerically quantify it and put a price on that value.  Everyone is worth something, everyone can be underpaid or overpaid.  I don't see the reason for them to pigeonhole themselves

You're right, lower revenue teams do use this sort of Moneyball approach.  What if a team with a much larger payroll used the same approach?  What if the Rays had the Cubs payroll?  I think it's worth the experiment.

Why should a large revenue team experiment with what it would be like to be a small market team and have to build within the margins? In doing this they would be working at a disadvantage to the small market teams, who every year get an extra draft pick, more IFA money and also get compensated better for losing a QO free agent and penalized less for signing a QO free agent. Why would any large revenue team want to conduct this sort of experiment and work from a disadvantage? Sadly, it is exactly what the Cubs are doing.

[Rcal10]

7 hours ago, Stratos said:

My point was just that Jed has a lot of options so he has the luxury of being flexible.

I don't agree with the "go get your guy even if overpaying".  At the end of the day, every player has a n inherent value determined by the Cubs, and they need to numerically quantify it and put a price on that value.  Everyone is worth something, everyone can be underpaid or overpaid.  I don't see the reason for them to pigeonhole themselves

You're right, lower revenue teams do use this sort of Moneyball approach.  What if a team with a much larger payroll used the same approach?  What if the Rays had the Cubs payroll?  I think it's worth the experiment.

But the options you suggest are nowhere near the players the Cubs should be going after. Tauchman and Canario are not a good option to Bellinger. Wesneski, Brown, Assad are not good options to someone like Luzardo in a trade or Montgomery as a free agent. Mervis is not an option for Hoskins or a Naylor trade. Madrigal and Wisdom are not options over Chapman. I feel as long as I have been in these sites people always try suggesting the Cubs don’t need someone because their minor leaguer is just as good. I remember that argument when the Cubs traded for Fowler. A lot of people suggested he wasn’t needed because they had A. Alcantara and Almora. You are doing the same thing now. 

Edited December 28, 2023 by Rcal10

[NorthsideAvenger]

The Cubs are the only team to not acquire a big leaguer via Free Agency or trade. 

[Tryptamine]

The NL Central is just sitting there for the for the taking and meanwhile Jed is busy scouring Goodwill for bargain deals. We're at a point where there aren't a lot of realistic scenarios to make the Cubs a clear favorite in the NLC. They're going to have to hit on just about all their targeted players from here on out. This slow played offseason has turned Bellinger, who most viewed as not particularly wanting based on his demands just a month or two ago, to almost making Bellinger a necessity to keep this offseason afloat. it is possible Jed pulls a rabbit out of the hat, but the margin for error continues to shrink.

[We Got The Whole 9]

Jed doesn't give a horsefeathers. He believes he has a Manager who will get the most out of his roster, and reinforcements are banging on the door at each position of weakness. At those positions, he has guys that he feels will be adequate for 2024 (Tauchman, Madrigal, Wisdom, Assad). He's not gonna go sign Bellinger just because and cave in to Boras' dumb ass demands. Some of y'all treat FA like it's a retail store where there's a set price and you have to pay it or you won't get the item. Bellinger's market is limited and his price needs to come down or Jed will go with Tauchman bridging to PCA, it's really that simple. Bellinger is not worth his current asking price. Jed is at a flea market and he's gonna haggle. Bitching about it every day isn't going to change that.

 

He tried for Ohtani and Yamamoto, even though he had 0 chance to make it happen, as made crystal clear by post-signing reports and remarks. He tried for Lee, and probably came 2nd or 3rd. And again, no other FA of consequence besides like Sonny Gray, has come off the board. 29 other teams have added MLB players but it's not like they have all been quality players. 

Edited December 28, 2023 by We Got The Whole 9

[squally1313]

46 minutes ago, Tryptamine said:

The NL Central is just sitting there for the for the taking and meanwhile Jed is busy scouring Goodwill for bargain deals. We're at a point where there aren't a lot of realistic scenarios to make the Cubs a clear favorite in the NLC. They're going to have to hit on just about all their targeted players from here on out. This slow played offseason has turned Bellinger, who most viewed as not particularly wanting based on his demands just a month or two ago, to almost making Bellinger a necessity to keep this offseason afloat. it is possible Jed pulls a rabbit out of the hat, but the margin for error continues to shrink.

You can argue/doom boner that the Cubs simply won't spend the money. Fine, I hate Ricketts too. But to say they are running on out realistic scenarios is just wrong. Let's say they have $60m to spend in AAV. Here are available players that get slot into positions of need (first, center, third, DH, starting pitching), their projected AAV, and projected fWAR.

• Montgomery, $21m, 3.2 fWAR
• Snell, $25m, 3.3 fWAR
• Imanaga, $20m(?), 2.6 fWAR
• Chapman, $20m, 2.6 fWAR
• Stroman, $22m, 2.6 fWAR
• Bellinger, $24m, 2.4 fWAR
• Giolito, $15m, 2.3 fWAR
• Paxton, $8m, 2.3 fWAR
• Hoskins, $14m, 2.0 fWAR
• Manaea, $12m, 2.0 fWAR
• Montas, $8m, 1.9 fWAR
• Soler, $16m, 1.9 fWAR
• Bader, $9m, 1.6 fWAR

Most of those dudes, especially the first 10 or so, would be clear upgrades to our current roster. And that's before considering the fact that we have a top farm system, a pretty hectic 40 man situation, and an expectation to win now (ie, all good trade conditions). 

[Jason Ross]

35 minutes ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

Jed doesn't give a horsefeathers. He believes he has a Manager who will get the most out of his roster, and reinforcements are banging on the door at each position of weakness. At those positions, he has guys that he feels will be adequate for 2024 (Tauchman, Madrigal, Wisdom, Assad). He's not gonna go sign Bellinger just because and cave in to Boras' dumb ass demands. Some of y'all treat FA like it's a retail store where there's a set price and you have to pay it or you won't get the item. Bellinger's market is limited and his price needs to come down or Jed will go with Tauchman bridging to PCA, it's really that simple. Bellinger is not worth his current asking price. Jed is at a flea market and he's gonna haggle. Bitching about it every day isn't going to change that.

 

He tried for Ohtani and Yamamoto, even though he had 0 chance to make it happen, as made crystal clear by post-signing reports and remarks. He tried for Lee, and probably came 2nd or 3rd. And again, no other FA of consequence besides like Sonny Gray, has come off the board. 29 other teams have added MLB players but it's not like they have all been quality players. 

He did try for Ohtani. With that said, it does not seem he tried at all for Yamamoto, unless I've missed some reporting over the last 4 days. The Cubs bowed out of Yamamoto, seemingly, at the start of the offseason, once it became clear the original projection of around $200-250m wasn't happening. The last I saw, the Cubs had no meetings with Yamamoto, and Hoyer's comments in an Athletic article on Yamamoto were...luke warm. Not really saying anything to the rest of the post, or what the Cubs should have done on Yamamoto, only that I wouldn't say he tried there in the same way he did for Ohtani. Ohtani it appears the Cubs offered something around what was necessary. Yamamoto, the Cubs bowed out well before.

[Tryptamine]

2 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

You can argue/doom boner that the Cubs simply won't spend the money. Fine, I hate Ricketts too. But to say they are running on out realistic scenarios is just wrong. Let's say they have $60m to spend in AAV. Here are available players that get slot into positions of need (first, center, third, DH, starting pitching), their projected AAV, and projected fWAR.

• Montgomery, $21m, 3.2 fWAR
• Snell, $25m, 3.3 fWAR
• Imanaga, $20m(?), 2.6 fWAR
• Chapman, $20m, 2.6 fWAR
• Stroman, $22m, 2.6 fWAR
• Bellinger, $24m, 2.4 fWAR
• Giolito, $15m, 2.3 fWAR
• Paxton, $8m, 2.3 fWAR
• Hoskins, $14m, 2.0 fWAR
• Manaea, $12m, 2.0 fWAR
• Montas, $8m, 1.9 fWAR
• Soler, $16m, 1.9 fWAR
• Bader, $9m, 1.6 fWAR

Most of those dudes, especially the first 10 or so, would be clear upgrades to our current roster. And that's before considering the fact that we have a top farm system, a pretty hectic 40 man situation, and an expectation to win now (ie, all good trade conditions). 

Yes, the parts are available to make a clear division favorite, but they're going to have to actually win those players in FA. I find it increasingly unlikely that they're going to win the bid on all their guys. Also, you have to replace 4.1 fWAR in Bellinger and 2.7 fWAR in Stroman to get back to even. So even if they grabbed Bellinger and Montgomery, they likely aren't any better than the previous year even though they just spent 55-60M in 2024.

[Rcal10]

5 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

You can argue/doom boner that the Cubs simply won't spend the money. Fine, I hate Ricketts too. But to say they are running on out realistic scenarios is just wrong. Let's say they have $60m to spend in AAV. Here are available players that get slot into positions of need (first, center, third, DH, starting pitching), their projected AAV, and projected fWAR.

• Montgomery, $21m, 3.2 fWAR
• Snell, $25m, 3.3 fWAR
• Imanaga, $20m(?), 2.6 fWAR
• Chapman, $20m, 2.6 fWAR
• Stroman, $22m, 2.6 fWAR
• Bellinger, $24m, 2.4 fWAR
• Giolito, $15m, 2.3 fWAR
• Paxton, $8m, 2.3 fWAR
• Hoskins, $14m, 2.0 fWAR
• Manaea, $12m, 2.0 fWAR
• Montas, $8m, 1.9 fWAR
• Soler, $16m, 1.9 fWAR
• Bader, $9m, 1.6 fWAR

Most of those dudes, especially the first 10 or so, would be clear upgrades to our current roster. And that's before considering the fact that we have a top farm system, a pretty hectic 40 man situation, and an expectation to win now (ie, all good trade conditions). 

I actually agree with you. There is time. And I think they have closer to $70M to spend. Using your numbers that is Hoskins, Bellinger, and Giolitto as free agents. Maybe a trade for Bieber and also get a pen arm somewhere. That should be enough to be a division favorite.
 

For me, rather than Bieber I would like to see a PCA trade for either something like Naylor/Bibee or PCA plus for Luzardo and then a seperate trade to the Guardians for Naylor. Maybe Wesneski and Canario. Of course if they got Naylor that would put either him or Hoskins at DH, so Morel would have to play 3rd. I doubt they trade PCA though. I think 1908 is spot on with what he says about how the Cubs view PCA. All scenarios are under $70M annual. 

[We Got The Whole 9]

24 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

He did try for Ohtani. With that said, it does not seem he tried at all for Yamamoto, unless I've missed some reporting over the last 4 days. The Cubs bowed out of Yamamoto, seemingly, at the start of the offseason, once it became clear the original projection of around $200-250m wasn't happening. The last I saw, the Cubs had no meetings with Yamamoto, and Hoyer's comments in an Athletic article on Yamamoto were...luke warm. Not really saying anything to the rest of the post, or what the Cubs should have done on Yamamoto, only that I wouldn't say he tried there in the same way he did for Ohtani. Ohtani it appears the Cubs offered something around what was necessary. Yamamoto, the Cubs bowed out well before.

I am hunching that they were blown off or just didn't feel their interest was going to be taken seriously and had a pretty good idea it was LA or NY all along. Yamamoto has said his desire was to be a Dodger even if Ohtani didn't sign there. I think this is why the fire for Ohtani burned out sooner than expected as well. They said the Cubs were finalists but Hoyer was mum. I believe that is because he could sense they were being disingenuous in negotiations. How do you not even get a meeting but yet your team is somehow still in the running. I think the insiders picked up on this as well and slowly filtered it through the media. 

 

The Cubs has 0 shot at either and Jed shouldn't get any blame for it IMO. 

[We Got The Whole 9]

22 minutes ago, Tryptamine said:

Yes, the parts are available to make a clear division favorite, but they're going to have to actually win those players in FA. I find it increasingly unlikely that they're going to win the bid on all their guys. Also, you have to replace 4.1 fWAR in Bellinger and 2.7 fWAR in Stroman to get back to even. So even if they grabbed Bellinger and Montgomery, they likely aren't any better than the previous year even though they just spent 55-60M in 2024.

You don't have to view the roster machinations this way if you feel Ross held you back. That's the thing. Jed probably believes Tauchman and PCA can give like, 3, in CF. So why give in to Boranger? He has 4 veteran ML starters and 3 young guys to fill in the back of the rotation. Plenty to account for natural attrition and this doesn't even take Horton into consideration, who can plausibly slot into the 2-3 spots very soon. 2.7 from Stroman isn't all that hard to replace honestly. if they only get 2 out of that spot, I don't think they view that as all that significant. 

 

This is basically the Moneyball scene where all the scouts are aghast and Jed is going to hold onto his guns.

[squally1313]

29 minutes ago, Tryptamine said:

Yes, the parts are available to make a clear division favorite, but they're going to have to actually win those players in FA. I find it increasingly unlikely that they're going to win the bid on all their guys. Also, you have to replace 4.1 fWAR in Bellinger and 2.7 fWAR in Stroman to get back to even. So even if they grabbed Bellinger and Montgomery, they likely aren't any better than the previous year even though they just spent 55-60M in 2024.

Yeah but that's too simplistic of a viewpoint right? You're also replacing the roughly 450 PAs that Mervis Hosmer and Mancini gave you at first that produced -1.8 fWAR. You're (hopefully reasonably) expecting Suzuki to be the second half player he was and not the first half player. Same with Taillon. Obviously there will be regressions to counteract that, but the team also underperformed last year so even just the same individual performances would likely add up to more wins than what they had in 2023. 

[Rcal10]

56 minutes ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

I am hunching that they were blown off or just didn't feel their interest was going to be taken seriously and had a pretty good idea it was LA or NY all along. Yamamoto has said his desire was to be a Dodger even if Ohtani didn't sign there. I think this is why the fire for Ohtani burned out sooner than expected as well. They said the Cubs were finalists but Hoyer was mum. I believe that is because he could sense they were being disingenuous in negotiations. How do you not even get a meeting but yet your team is somehow still in the running. I think the insiders picked up on this as well and slowly filtered it through the media. 

 

The Cubs has 0 shot at either and Jed shouldn't get any blame for it IMO. 

I agree he shouldn’t get the blame for that. But he also shouldn’t get credit for trying. It is easy to suggest you are making offers when you know a guy isn’t coming here. He basically knew he had no shot at those guys. So while he can’t be blamed for not getting them I don’t think anyone should give him credit for trying for someone he couldn’t possibly get. Up until now he hasn’t been aggressive with anyone he could reasonably get.

[Jason Ross]

1 hour ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

I am hunching that they were blown off or just didn't feel their interest was going to be taken seriously and had a pretty good idea it was LA or NY all along. Yamamoto has said his desire was to be a Dodger even if Ohtani didn't sign there. I think this is why the fire for Ohtani burned out sooner than expected as well. They said the Cubs were finalists but Hoyer was mum. I believe that is because he could sense they were being disingenuous in negotiations. How do you not even get a meeting but yet your team is somehow still in the running. I think the insiders picked up on this as well and slowly filtered it through the media. 

 

The Cubs has 0 shot at either and Jed shouldn't get any blame for it IMO. 

I don't think that's fair here. I think you can say that the Cubs were put off by the $300m and we can debate that, but the Yankees and Mets were right there on Yamamoto and unlike Ohtani, it seemed his were well open. Unlike Ohtani, Yamamoto feels like it could have gone anywhere, as long as the money was right. The Cubs didn't even seemingly try with Yamamoto. Those lukewarm quotes from Hoyer were back during the Winter Meetings and that was well before his market kicked up. That's well too early for the Cubs to have had any idea that Yamamoto was going to LAD, too. 

I'm all for being fair to Hoyer and the Cubs pursuits. I'm fine with saying the Cubs tried on Ohtani, that they didn't have a real shot because of Shohei. Cool with saying they can still get stuff done. That sometimes they're really quiet. But nothing has come out even after the Yamamoto thing to give the Cubs this level of credit here. I don't think the Cubs put forth half a real effort once it became clear the price was going over $250m. We can debate whether that's the right choice to tie up that much money in a starting pitcher and that maybe the Cubs felt that way. But I don't think we can retcon the "well the Cubs really tried on Yamamoto" thing either. They seemingly didn't.

[Stratos]

8 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

Why should a large revenue team experiment with what it would be like to be a small market team and have to build within the margins? In doing this they would be working at a disadvantage to the small market teams, who every year get an extra draft pick, more IFA money and also get compensated better for losing a QO free agent and penalized less for signing a QO free agent. Why would any large revenue team want to conduct this sort of experiment and work from a disadvantage? Sadly, it is exactly what the Cubs are doing.

The Cubs are a large market team and as long as they spend payroll near or over the CBT like a large market team should they will never "experiment with what it would be like to be a small market team".  The Cubs advantage is their larger payroll, so they should use it but typically spend it as efficiently as they can to maximize their wins.  Having more payroll shouldn't be an excuse to flush money down the drain.  Money = wins.  Flushing wins down the toilet is totally illogical (except in exceptional cases, like trading a quality prospect for a 3-month rental at the trade deadline to try to save or leverage a season).  The Tigers have been flushing a bunch of wins down the toilet every year the last 7 years because of the Miguel Cabrera contract because they could have spent that money on much better players.

Every single front office in the MLB should be doing everything they can to maximize their number of wins per million they spend on payroll.   That's literally their job.  If the Cubs can do that better than other large market teams they will be at an advantage and win more games than other teams that spend the same in total payroll.

I think a lot of fans are impatient and are guided by on emotion over logic.  They want star players right now to get a short-term dopamine hit of excitement so their team has the best chance to win next year while not worrying at all about the consequences 5+ years down the line.

[Stratos]

29 minutes ago, TomtheBombadil said:

I strongly, strongly suspect all this patience is taking the Cubs exactly where they (ownership) want: Future 2.0 being cheaper than 1.0,

It's possible you're right on this specific point, but it can only be confirmed if the Cubs don't spend as much relative to the CBT line as their last run.  Otherwise, it just means they're being smart.  There's a huge difference between the 2.

Edited December 28, 2023 by Stratos

[Rcal10]

25 minutes ago, Stratos said:

The Cubs are a large market team and as long as they spend payroll near or over the CBT like a large market team should they will never "experiment with what it would be like to be a small market team".  The Cubs advantage is their larger payroll, so they should use it but typically spend it as efficiently as they can to maximize their wins.  Having more payroll shouldn't be an excuse to flush money down the drain.  Money = wins.  Flushing wins down the toilet is totally illogical (except in exceptional cases, like trading a quality prospect for a 3-month rental at the trade deadline to try to save or leverage a season).  The Tigers have been flushing a bunch of wins down the toilet every year the last 7 years because of the Miguel Cabrera contract because they could have spent that money on much better players.

Every single front office in the MLB should be doing everything they can to maximize their number of wins per million they spend on payroll.   That's literally their job.  If the Cubs can do that better than other large market teams they will be at an advantage and win more games than other teams that spend the same in total payroll.

I think a lot of fans are impatient and are guided by on emotion over logic.  They want star players right now to get a short-term dopamine hit of excitement so their team has the best chance to win next year while not worrying at all about the consequences 5+ years down the line.

Sometimes you have to pay a guy on a contract even when you know the back 2 or 3 years if it might not be great. That is the advantage of high revenues. You should be able to overcome that overpriced contract. If you get 6 years of very good and 2 where he isn’t worth the contract that is a win. Take Lester as an example. His last few years he wasn’t very good. But they won a horsefeathers World Series so no one is complaining. Your way of thinking will mean the Cubs never sign a high end FA. Which I said before and I was told I was overreacting. The Cubs can sign a guy longer term even if it means at the end he might not be so great. They should have enough young, cheap talent to balance that out. You keep championing the Cubs and their “responsible spending” and continue to root for a team that will never be a serious contender using that philosophy. I will continue to hope they put on big boy pants and act like a team that wants to win. 
Quick question, would you rather the Cubs be like the Dodgers and spend like they did this year or be “fiscally responsible”? 

[Backtobanks]

23 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Sometimes you have to pay a guy on a contract even when you know the back 2 or 3 years if it might not be great. That is the advantage of high revenues. You should be able to overcome that overpriced contract. If you get 6 years of very good and 2 where he isn’t worth the contract that is a win. Take Lester as an example. His last few years he wasn’t very good. But they won a horsefeathers World Series so no one is complaining. Your way of thinking will mean the Cubs never sign a high end FA. Which I said before and I was told I was overreacting. The Cubs can sign a guy longer term even if it means at the end he might not be so great. They should have enough young, cheap talent to balance that out. You keep championing the Cubs and their “responsible spending” and continue to root for a team that will never be a serious contender using that philosophy. I will continue to hope they put on big boy pants and act like a team that wants to win. 
Quick question, would you rather the Cubs be like the Dodgers and spend like they did this year or be “fiscally responsible”? 

I certainly would the Cubs be like the Dodgers and be annual contenders and not the "fiscally responsible" annual pretenders that they are.  When the Cubs finally get close to really spending and possibly contending, they go back into "tank mode" so that Ricketts can recoup some of his money.  It's not like Ricketts is doing anything for the fans while he's being "fiscally responsible".  

[Rcal10]

46 minutes ago, Backtobanks said:

I certainly would the Cubs be like the Dodgers and be annual contenders and not the "fiscally responsible" annual pretenders that they are.  When the Cubs finally get close to really spending and possibly contending, they go back into "tank mode" so that Ricketts can recoup some of his money.  It's not like Ricketts is doing anything for the fans while he's being "fiscally responsible".  

Yep, but for some reason some fans love the idea of winning on the margins. Winning without a star. Winning with all value contracts. I don’t care. The only thing that matters is winning. Being a high revenue team gives you the luxury of indulging every once in a while on a top line player. And at the end of his contract when he isn’t worth the money you should be able to still be competitive as long as you don’t have too many of those contracts. 
did anyone really complain about what Lester was making the last few years of his contract? I didn’t. In fact, Lester was probably one of the best FA the Cubs ever signed. Yet he was not worth his contract for a bit at the end of his deal. 

[Stratos]

5 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

Sometimes you have to pay a guy on a contract even when you know the back 2 or 3 years if it might not be great. That is the advantage of high revenues. You should be able to overcome that overpriced contract.  If you get 6 years of very good and 2 where he isn’t worth the contract that is a win. Take Lester as an example. His last few years he wasn’t very good. But they won a horsefeathers World Series so no one is complaining. Your way of thinking will mean the Cubs never sign a high end FA. Which I said before and I was told I was overreacting. The Cubs can sign a guy longer term even if it means at the end he might not be so great. They should have enough young, cheap talent to balance that out. You keep championing the Cubs and their “responsible spending” and continue to root for a team that will never be a serious contender using that philosophy. I will continue to hope they put on big boy pants and act like a team that wants to win.

How do you "overcome" an overpriced contract?  Please be specific.  That money and those wins are gone.  It would only happen if the FO has a blank check or can spend silly amounts of money on payroll.  I've never argued that you should never sign a player past their prime years, but you should try to avoid it where you can, and try to get more prime years than post-prime years where you can.  The Xander Bogaerts contract, for example, is a really bad contract.  It's embarrassingly bad.  He's going to be a Padre until the year 2033 and very likely sucking wins from the team on a yearly basis for over half the contract.  But they went all-in on 2023, that's their choice.  They made a huge bet and lost.

You can't keep using Lester as an example.  He was signed for only 6 years.  He had won 2 rings for Theo's Red Sox and performed very well for them in the playoffs and WS.  He was arguably good for 4 years and mediocre to bad for about 2, but made up for it with the many very good playoff performances he had for us.  He was on Cubs teams that had players with very high surplus value.  If he would only sign for 8 years would you have have taken him for 8 years, without the hindsight of knowing what happened in 2016?  He would have been an asset for the first half of that deal and cost the team wins over the last 4 years.  If the Cubs had a 280m payroll sure, it starts to matter less when you can just throw around money to fix problems.

And i've never said they shouldn't sign a high-end FA.  They signed Swanson, that's a pretty decent FA contract, even though he's probably going to regress over the latter half of the deal, so yeah you can live with a few years of regression to get a really good player.  If he signed for 250 mil would that make you feel better about it because it was "big money"?  No, I didn't want them to sign Bogaerts or Turner for what they signed for.  I wouldn't have signed Judge, Rodon, DeGrom, or Verlander either.

Quote

Quick question, would you rather the Cubs be like the Dodgers and spend like they did this year or be “fiscally responsible”? 

I would love for the Cubs to have the Dodgers payroll.  It's projected to be 277m this season by Sportac.  If you're spending that much on players and have a very good farm system like the Cubs then I do agree you can sign some of the best players in baseball to deals that probably fade on the back half.  The calculation changes if the payroll goes from 230m to 280m.  My arguments are based on the assumption the Cubs spend around the CBT line.  I've always argued they should spend over the tax line this season.  My ideal would be to have a very high payroll and sign Ohtani, Nola or Yamamoto, maybe Bellinger, a good closer etc.  So maybe we agree in some ways and don't even know it haha.

[CubinNY]

7 hours ago, Stratos said:

How do you "overcome" an overpriced contract?  Please be specific.  That money and those wins are gone.  It would only happen if the FO has a blank check or can spend silly amounts of money on payroll.  I've never argued that you should never sign a player past their prime years, but you should try to avoid it where you can, and try to get more prime years than post-prime years where you can.  The Xander Bogaerts contract, for example, is a really bad contract.  It's embarrassingly bad.  He's going to be a Padre until the year 2033 and very likely sucking wins from the team on a yearly basis for over half the contract.  But they went all-in on 2023, that's their choice.  They made a huge bet and lost.

You can't keep using Lester as an example.  He was signed for only 6 years.  He had won 2 rings for Theo's Red Sox and performed very well for them in the playoffs and WS.  He was arguably good for 4 years and mediocre to bad for about 2, but made up for it with the many very good playoff performances he had for us.  He was on Cubs teams that had players with very high surplus value.  If he would only sign for 8 years would you have have taken him for 8 years, without the hindsight of knowing what happened in 2016?  He would have been an asset for the first half of that deal and cost the team wins over the last 4 years.  If the Cubs had a 280m payroll sure, it starts to matter less when you can just throw around money to fix problems.

And i've never said they shouldn't sign a high-end FA.  They signed Swanson, that's a pretty decent FA contract, even though he's probably going to regress over the latter half of the deal, so yeah you can live with a few years of regression to get a really good player.  If he signed for 250 mil would that make you feel better about it because it was "big money"?  No, I didn't want them to sign Bogaerts or Turner for what they signed for.  I wouldn't have signed Judge, Rodon, DeGrom, or Verlander either.

I would love for the Cubs to have the Dodgers payroll.  It's projected to be 277m this season by Sportac.  If you're spending that much on players and have a very good farm system like the Cubs then I do agree you can sign some of the best players in baseball to deals that probably fade on the back half.  The calculation changes if the payroll goes from 230m to 280m.  My arguments are based on the assumption the Cubs spend around the CBT line.  I've always argued they should spend over the tax line this season.  My ideal would be to have a very high payroll and sign Ohtani, Nola or Yamamoto, maybe Bellinger, a good closer etc.  So maybe we agree in some ways and don't even know it haha.

overpriced is a value judgment and not an objective fact. Next.

[Rcal10]

7 hours ago, Stratos said:

How do you "overcome" an overpriced contract?  Please be specific.  That money and those wins are gone.  It would only happen if the FO has a blank check or can spend silly amounts of money on payroll.  I've never argued that you should never sign a player past their prime years, but you should try to avoid it where you can, and try to get more prime years than post-prime years where you can.  The Xander Bogaerts contract, for example, is a really bad contract.  It's embarrassingly bad.  He's going to be a Padre until the year 2033 and very likely sucking wins from the team on a yearly basis for over half the contract.  But they went all-in on 2023, that's their choice.  They made a huge bet and lost.

You can't keep using Lester as an example.  He was signed for only 6 years.  He had won 2 rings for Theo's Red Sox and performed very well for them in the playoffs and WS.  He was arguably good for 4 years and mediocre to bad for about 2, but made up for it with the many very good playoff performances he had for us.  He was on Cubs teams that had players with very high surplus value.  If he would only sign for 8 years would you have have taken him for 8 years, without the hindsight of knowing what happened in 2016?  He would have been an asset for the first half of that deal and cost the team wins over the last 4 years.  If the Cubs had a 280m payroll sure, it starts to matter less when you can just throw around money to fix problems.

And i've never said they shouldn't sign a high-end FA.  They signed Swanson, that's a pretty decent FA contract, even though he's probably going to regress over the latter half of the deal, so yeah you can live with a few years of regression to get a really good player.  If he signed for 250 mil would that make you feel better about it because it was "big money"?  No, I didn't want them to sign Bogaerts or Turner for what they signed for.  I wouldn't have signed Judge, Rodon, DeGrom, or Verlander either.

I would love for the Cubs to have the Dodgers payroll.  It's projected to be 277m this season by Sportac.  If you're spending that much on players and have a very good farm system like the Cubs then I do agree you can sign some of the best players in baseball to deals that probably fade on the back half.  The calculation changes if the payroll goes from 230m to 280m.  My arguments are based on the assumption the Cubs spend around the CBT line.  I've always argued they should spend over the tax line this season.  My ideal would be to have a very high payroll and sign Ohtani, Nola or Yamamoto, maybe Bellinger, a good closer etc.  So maybe we agree in some ways and don't even know it haha.

How do I get specific on overcoming an overpriced contract? I can give you an example of the Dodger. Most years they are overpaying several guys on their team and winning. I believe one year they had Crawford & Price on their team for crazy money and not playing them and won. They had Bauer for a lot of money getting no value. If you look you can find example after example of a team winning with a guy making big money and not playing. And I am not even talking about that now. I agree with you on the super long contracts for the super stars. It makes me nervous too. But what I am talking about is guys that are available now. If they want Bellinger than get him. Maybe they only want 5 years. But if they have to go to 7, than do it. If they want him. Same with any of the pitchers, Chapman or whoever else they are interested in. Why do they have to wait until the rest of the market passes on a guy and get him cheap? In the case of Bellinger, if he was making $26M a year and was solid for 4 or 5 those years and the last 2 he was an ok player being overpaid, does that cripple the Cubs? If he is a starter who ends up with a WAR of 2.5 does paying more than he is worth soon the Cubs to failure? I don’t think so.

TBH I am still not comfortable with the 10-12 year deal either. I just know if the Cubs never do that sort of deal they will never get the top FA. 
 

 

[Guest234]

Appears to me that Poppa Joe's money says "squat" and hope no pne else in the central division runs over us.

[We Got The Whole 9]

9 hours ago, Stratos said:

How do you "overcome" an overpriced contract?  Please be specific.  That money and those wins are gone.  It would only happen if the FO has a blank check or can spend silly amounts of money on payroll.  I've never argued that you should never sign a player past their prime years, but you should try to avoid it where you can, and try to get more prime years than post-prime years where you can.  The Xander Bogaerts contract, for example, is a really bad contract.  It's embarrassingly bad.  He's going to be a Padre until the year 2033 and very likely sucking wins from the team on a yearly basis for over half the contract.  But they went all-in on 2023, that's their choice.  They made a huge bet and lost.

You can't keep using Lester as an example.  He was signed for only 6 years.  He had won 2 rings for Theo's Red Sox and performed very well for them in the playoffs and WS.  He was arguably good for 4 years and mediocre to bad for about 2, but made up for it with the many very good playoff performances he had for us.  He was on Cubs teams that had players with very high surplus value.  If he would only sign for 8 years would you have have taken him for 8 years, without the hindsight of knowing what happened in 2016?  He would have been an asset for the first half of that deal and cost the team wins over the last 4 years.  If the Cubs had a 280m payroll sure, it starts to matter less when you can just throw around money to fix problems.

And i've never said they shouldn't sign a high-end FA.  They signed Swanson, that's a pretty decent FA contract, even though he's probably going to regress over the latter half of the deal, so yeah you can live with a few years of regression to get a really good player.  If he signed for 250 mil would that make you feel better about it because it was "big money"?  No, I didn't want them to sign Bogaerts or Turner for what they signed for.  I wouldn't have signed Judge, Rodon, DeGrom, or Verlander either.

I would love for the Cubs to have the Dodgers payroll.  It's projected to be 277m this season by Sportac.  If you're spending that much on players and have a very good farm system like the Cubs then I do agree you can sign some of the best players in baseball to deals that probably fade on the back half.  The calculation changes if the payroll goes from 230m to 280m.  My arguments are based on the assumption the Cubs spend around the CBT line.  I've always argued they should spend over the tax line this season.  My ideal would be to have a very high payroll and sign Ohtani, Nola or Yamamoto, maybe Bellinger, a good closer etc.  So maybe we agree in some ways and don't even know it haha.

The simple answer is you throw a decent prospect with the bad contract and trade it to a rich team. This has happened so many times over the years. Not sure the Cubs will ever do it, but the point remains.