Article: The Cubs and the Vice of Patience

[Backtobanks]

1 hour ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

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. 

We won't give up a decent prospect because we want to make sure they're completely worthless before giving up on them.

[Rcal10]

1 hour ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

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. 

Honestly I am not even talking about that kind of a signing now. I am just talking about with the guys who are left. If there is a bat and a starting pitcher the Cubs do want, I don’t feel they need to let the market play out so they can get the best deal. Go get the guy. If their plan is Bellinger, for example, then sign him. Don’t wait and have someone else get him so you change your plan to Chapman. I don’t like the idea of the market dictating the Xubs moves. That is what small market teams do. Same with pitchers. If they like a pit her more than  others then sing him. Again, don’t wait to take the guy who is standing. He might be your last choice. At least with pitchers they won’t have to change the direction of the rest of the if season. With a bat they do. If Hoskins falls and ends up the guy the Cubs can get, then maybe they don’t want to trade for Naylor. But if they are left with Chapman standing maybe they should have traded for Naylor. Waiting on the bat slows down anything else they want to do. I would just like to see them operate S if they have a ola  as to who they want. Not a ola  to take what is left.

[Backtobanks]

2 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

Honestly I am not even talking about that kind of a signing now. I am just talking about with the guys who are left. If there is a bat and a starting pitcher the Cubs do want, I don’t feel they need to let the market play out so they can get the best deal. Go get the guy. If their plan is Bellinger, for example, then sign him. Don’t wait and have someone else get him so you change your plan to Chapman. I don’t like the idea of the market dictating the Xubs moves. That is what small market teams do. Same with pitchers. If they like a pit her more than  others then sing him. Again, don’t wait to take the guy who is standing. He might be your last choice. At least with pitchers they won’t have to change the direction of the rest of the if season. With a bat they do. If Hoskins falls and ends up the guy the Cubs can get, then maybe they don’t want to trade for Naylor. But if they are left with Chapman standing maybe they should have traded for Naylor. Waiting on the bat slows down anything else they want to do. I would just like to see them operate S if they have a ola  as to who they want. Not a ola  to take what is left.

I am so tired of waiting for Jed to do something.  waiting for Bellinger and/or Hoskins to lower their asking price is one thing but moves like Bieber and Naylor have been sitting there for quite a while and seem rather affordable (prospect wise) and would make great additions to the team without adding too much to the payroll.

[Stratos]

8 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

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.

If the Cubs spent like the Dodgers and could just spend away their bad contracts sure that would be great and would be my preference.  But we can't keep comparing ourselves to the Dodgers.  They have about 130 mil more in annual revenue.  I'm going on the assumption the Cubs have a budget limit every season because that's how Ricketts has always handled the payroll and Jed has to work within that budget, even if I don't like it.  Theo wasn't able to just "spend away" Heyward's underperformance.  Yes guys get hurt etc and it can't be predicted, and Heyward looked like a smart contract that they still shouldn't have regret signing.  But you can minimize the risks, try to choose younger guys over older ones, sign 7 year deals over 10 year deals etc if the choice is there.   If you think of the stock market, putting your eggs all in one basket is a lot riskier than diversifying your risk and spreading your money across several good or very good players rather than dropping bombs of money on 1 or 2 stars player through age 40.  More risk can mean more reward but it can also blow up in your face and hamper a franchise for years.

I don't have an issue of them signing Bellinger or a 30 y/o SP even if they have a couple of meh years near the end.  My point before is that they have the flexibility to not pigeon-hole themselves with 1 specific SP or 1 big position guy they like.  There have been numerous quality SP's on the market this year with similar value and they can trade for a SP too.  e.g. If bidding for Montgomery gets much higher than expected and you can get Bieber cheap then get Bieber, if Montgomery falls in your lap for cheaper than expected and Bieber is expensive then go Montgomery.

I think the Braves have a good philosophy.  Develop your best players via prospects, extend them or let them walk like Swanson/Freeman if they won't and take the QO or trade them to reload the farm.  Supplement the team with trades and smart FA signings.  Jed has done the same with Happ, Baez, Bryant etc and it's been working out well so far.

[Stratos]

8 hours ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

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. 

Yeah but you're still losing a prospect.  If a player loses value that value is lost and can't be recovered, you can only spend more than you would have to compensate.  Ricketts has never really let the FO do that.  He's thrown them several extra million when needed in a pinch but not 20-30 million every year.

Edited December 29, 2023 by Stratos

[Rex Buckingham]

The Cubs, like every other major league team, can spend basically whatever they want and still turn a profit.