Winter Doldrums Thread

[Gjfificifjdej]

40 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

I’m done thawv. Your right the Cubs should win every year and failure to do so is all Jed’s fault. Happy?

“The sole major market in a division should dominate that division the majority of the time” is not exactly a hot take lol. 

[Rcal10]

2 minutes ago, Gjfificifjdej said:

“The sole major market in a division should dominate that division the majority of the time” is not exactly a hot take lol. 

It is also not a hot take to suggest the team with a top 5 revenue in the sport should also be a top 5 spender every year and frequently go over the LT line. It should use its financial muscle. But that doesn’t happen either. 

[thawv]

47 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

I’m done thawv. Your right the Cubs should win every year and failure to do so is all Jed’s fault. Happy?

hahahaha....not at all!!!  All I ask for as a fan is to always be trying to win the WS.  It's almost always not going to happen but just try. 

[thawv]

56 minutes ago, Neuby said:

Most 22 year old catchers have the same problem and just need reps. 

 

Very true, but his height and weight are not helping him at the position. 

[thawv]

11 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

It is also not a hot take to suggest the team with a top 5 revenue in the sport should also be a top 5 spender every year and frequently go over the LT line. It should use its financial muscle. But that doesn’t happen either. 

I think you may have mentioned it already, but the only advantage a major market team has is their financial muscle.  If they don't use that one advantage it's like playing with one are tied behind their back. 

Edited January 6 by thawv

[Rcal10]

22 minutes ago, thawv said:

I think you may have mentioned it already, but the only advantage a major market team has is their financial muscle.  If they don't use that one advantage it's like playing with one are tied behind their back. 

👍 yep, Jed is such an idiot! 

[chibears55]

31 minutes ago, thawv said:

I think you may have mentioned it already, but the only advantage a major market team has is their financial muscle.  If they don't use that one advantage it's like playing with one are tied behind their back. 

When Dansby Swanson 28 mil, Imanaga 22 mil and Suzuki/Happ 19 mil are your top paid players on your roster, there's a problem. 

Close to 40% of the Threshold spent on 4 guys who aren't star players.

Edited January 6 by chibears55

[Jason Ross]

3 minutes ago, chibears55 said:

When Dansby Swanson 28 mil, Imanaga 22 mil and Suzuki/Happ 19 mil are your top paid players on your roster, there's a problem. 

Close to 40% of the Threshold spent on 4 guys who aren't star players.

There is a very good chance all four of those contracts provide surplus value in 2026 and all have provided surplus since they've been signed. This isn't as big of a flex as you're making it.

[CubinNY]

4 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

There is a very good chance all four of those contracts provide surplus value in 2026 and all have provided surplus since they've been signed. This isn't as big of a flex as you're making it.

Clean books is Jed's calling card. I don't know what surplus value means, but to me it means you aren't sending money or taking trash when you want to do a trade. I know they put dollar values on WAR and I can't get behind that. 

[Jason Ross]

7 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

Clean books is Jed's calling card. I don't know what surplus value means, but to me it means you aren't sending money or taking trash when you want to do a trade. I know they put dollar values on WAR and I can't get behind that. 

Surplus value means that you get more value than you put in. We can generally track how much teams spend to get wins on the back end - it ranges from like $8-9.5m or so per fWAR. So to get 3 wins, you'd spend somewhere between $24m - $30m; generally stacking wins increases how much you'd spend (these are better players and it's harder to stack wins). It's not always this clean; when you sign a 5 year deal you are doing so knowing you'll get more value today than you will, in say, five years - as players age they get worse eventually, but you get the idea.

Think of it this way. It's like spending $40 in groceries but you got what should normally cost $50; you got more food than you would normally get at that price. If the complaint is that the Cubs aren't spending their money well, complaining about these contracts isn't the place to do it at. 

[squally1313]

The hate for Dansby, Happ, etc is so backwards. I know this is at risk of oversimplifying the concept of 'teams that win more games have better players', but here were the players under team control in 2023 and what they produced for the Cubs (fWAR, sorry, cover your eyes CubinNY) (spoilered for size):

• Spoiler

  • Madrigal 1.2
  • Leiter Jr 0.6
  • Wisdom 0.6
  • Alzolay 1.5
  • Merryweather 0.9
  • Thompson 0.1
  • Steele 4.8
  • Hughes 0.0
  • Wesneski -0.3
  • Morel 1.6
  • Total: 11 fWAR

   

And here's 2025:

• Spoiler

  • Tucker 4.5
  • Civale 0.0
  • Castro -0.5
  • McGuire 0.8
  • Steele 0.0
  • Morgan -0.3
  • Assad 0.3
  • Amaya 0.8
  • Busch 3.5
  • PCA 5.4
  • Palencia 1.0
  • Shaw 1.5
  • Horton 2.2
  • Total: 19.1 fWAR

  Paying good, experienced players their approximate worth on the open market is fine business. The key is young, cheap talent. It's also a little bit paying top prices for elite talent, but the standard targets for complaints aren't the issue. It was the development of internal talent from 2018-2022ish that had to be backfilled by guys like Taillon and led to largely mediocre teams. 

[Bertz]

It would make the meatballiest segment of this fanbase's heads explode, but I wonder if there is any thought to re-acquiring Isaac Paredes. 

- Two years of control so he's here through the roster cliff but not long term

- Hits well enough that you're comfortable playing him at 1B or DH on any given day.  So he can basically float between 1B/3B/DH without pushing one of the kids permanently to the bench

- He makes enough money that you can't do both a FA SP and add Paredes and stay $10M under the tax, but he makes little enough you could stay ~$5 under if that's an order

- It sounds like he's freely available.  The Correa trade pushed him off 3B, and even with the boost from the Crawford boxes he's just solid as a 1B/DH bat.  He's been tied to the Red Sox a good bit and you suspect he's a backup plan of theirs

As far as 3B options go in FA there's a huge dropoff between the #2 guy in Bregman and the #3 guy in Geno Suarez.  Paredes would slot in between them and is much closer to #2 than #3.  I think that at his salaries is worth trading some value for.

[Irrelevant Dude]

18 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

Surplus value means that you get more value than you put in.

And that is great, all things being equal.  If there are 2 teams with the same payroll, you would prefer to be the one who is getting more value out of their assets.  But in reality, things are never that simple.  Teams that spend more don't need to get as much value per dollar out of their players and can afford to take risks in their spending.  To me, that is one of the big problems with the Cubs' approach.  They are so afraid of potentially bad contracts that they also are extremely unlikely to ever sign players to historically good contracts (think players like Ohtani, Bryce Harper).  If you are always fishing in the 2nd tier waters, you may often come out ahead, and the Cubs have been really good about maximizing value on those types of players, but they are going to need to continue hitting on those deals year after year.

[Jason Ross]

42 minutes ago, Irrelevant Dude said:

And that is great, all things being equal.  If there are 2 teams with the same payroll, you would prefer to be the one who is getting more value out of their assets.  But in reality, things are never that simple.  Teams that spend more don't need to get as much value per dollar out of their players and can afford to take risks in their spending.  To me, that is one of the big problems with the Cubs' approach.  They are so afraid of potentially bad contracts that they also are extremely unlikely to ever sign players to historically good contracts (think players like Ohtani, Bryce Harper).  If you are always fishing in the 2nd tier waters, you may often come out ahead, and the Cubs have been really good about maximizing value on those types of players, but they are going to need to continue hitting on those deals year after year.

I agree with this general idea. I do think the Cubs are incredibly risk adverse right now and that is the real issue. It's meant that the bad contracts haven't been there; what's the worst deals the team has made under Hoyer? Trey Mancini? Tucker Barnhart? These are peanuts. It's why I always find it odd when people complain about the Cubs' trading habits or that the team is throwing money at the wrong players - one thing Hoyer really doesn't do is "miss".

But in the same vein, to hit home runs, sometimes you have to risk missing and I think some of this is a self-fulfilling prophecy, too. 

It's why complaining about the Happ, Swanson, or whatever deals is not the right tree to shake. I'd like to see the Cubs finally pick a guy, though. I was personally hoping that was Imai, but it doesn't seem they loved him like I loved him. Maybe it'll be Bichette, who the more I think about the more I think they should love him. But maybe they'll never love anyone, and that's kind of the issue. I don't care, in a vacuum, if they don't love any single player (or mostly any single player), but you also can't love no one, ever.

[ILMindState]

23 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

I agree with this general idea. I do think the Cubs are incredibly risk adverse right now and that is the real issue. It's meant that the bad contracts haven't been there; what's the worst deals the team has made under Hoyer? Trey Mancini? Tucker Barnhart? These are peanuts. It's why I always find it odd when people complain about the Cubs' trading habits or that the team is throwing money at the wrong players - one thing Hoyer really doesn't do is "miss".

But in the same vein, to hit home runs, sometimes you have to risk missing and I think some of this is a self-fulfilling prophecy, too. 

It's why complaining about the Happ, Swanson, or whatever deals is not the right tree to shake. I'd like to see the Cubs finally pick a guy, though. I was personally hoping that was Imai, but it doesn't seem they loved him like I loved him. Maybe it'll be Bichette, who the more I think about the more I think they should love him. But maybe they'll never love anyone, and that's kind of the issue. I don't care, in a vacuum, if they don't love any single player (or mostly any single player), but you also can't love no one, ever.

The video of Cubs fans chanting "Trey Mancini!" during bingo night at the Cubs convention lives rent free in my head every off season. 

[chibears55]

1 hour ago, Jason Ross said:

There is a very good chance all four of those contracts provide surplus value in 2026 and all have provided surplus since they've been signed. This isn't as big of a flex as you're making it.

Im not saying Happ, Suzuki, or Imanaga are overpaid, or even Swanson for that matter, my point is that although they are good to very good players they are not stars.

Hoyer with the budget he is given has to build a roster with guys who you hope can give you that surplus value so they are able to compete, and as I was pointing out in my post, when these are your top 4 paid players on your roster, although they are good players how confidence are you in the 4 of them to carry them to another 90+ win season without a true star quality player or two leading them.

It not a knock on the players, it a knock on how this team is run, we have seen it for 50 years when it comes to the Cubs, yea they grab a guy here and there, but it mostly just hoping they get lucky with a roster of guys that everything just clicks for them and they win enough to stay competitive all year.

84 89 98 03 07 08

Then finally a run with a talented group of young cost controlled talent 15-20

25

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 6 by chibears55

[squally1313]

2 minutes ago, chibears55 said:

Hoyer with the budget he is given has to build a roster with guys who you hope can give you that surplus value so they are able to compete, and as I was pointing out in my post, when these are your top 4 paid players on your roster, although they are good players how confidence are you in the 4 of them to carry them to another 90+ win season without a true star quality player or two leading them.

This isn't basketball, or NFL quarterbacks or whatever. Mike Trout has one 90 win season in his career. They're good players making good player money. The surplus value doesn't or shouldn't come from the free agency market where you generally have to outbid 29 other teams. It comes from the players you develop, and we're (finally) getting that now. 

[Jason Ross]

11 minutes ago, chibears55 said:

Im not saying Happ, Suzuki, or Imanaga are overpaid, or even Swanson for that matter, my point is that although they are good to very good players they are not stars.

Hoyer with the budget he is given has to build a roster with guys who you hope can give you that surplus value so they are able to compete, and as I was pointing out in my post, when these are your top 4 paid players on your roster, although they are good players how confidence are you in the 4 of them to carry them to another 90+ win season without a true star quality player or two leading them.

It not a knock on the players, it a knock on how this team is run, we have seen it for 50 years when it comes to the Cubs, yea they grab a guy here and there, but it mostly just hoping they get lucky with a roster of guys that everything just clicks for them and they win enough to stay competitive all year.

 

 

 

What a "star" is or isn't is just an adjective. It's not important. If the Cubs spend $240m and get $270m in value, they're doing great. The issue isn't that the Cubs spend whatever% on these four players. And your post was complaining that 40% of their budget is spent on these four players. 

Make the argument then, that what the Cubs need to do is be somewhat inefficient somewhere because that's the biggest issue that faces Hoyer. It's that the Cubs are getting plenty of surplus value from these four players that what they should be doing is being somewhat inefficient elsewhere to secure a Bo Bichette, or a Dylan Cease, or through a trade where they give up prospects. 

You're dancing around the argument but you're still kind of missing it. The Cubs are good enough at being efficient that they are a large enough market, and should have enough ability to be somewhat inefficient in some places. Not for the sake of being inefficient, but that it's much harder to be as surplus-driven when the prices get bigger.

[mul21]

13 minutes ago, chibears55 said:

Im not saying Happ, Suzuki, or Imanaga are overpaid, or even Swanson for that matter, my point is that although they are good to very good players they are not stars.

Hoyer with the budget he is given has to build a roster with guys who you hope can give you that surplus value so they are able to compete, and as I was pointing out in my post, when these are your top 4 paid players on your roster, although they are good players how confidence are you in the 4 of them to carry them to another 90+ win season without a true star quality player or two leading them.

It not a knock on the players, it a knock on how this team is run, we have seen it for 50 years when it comes to the Cubs, yea they grab a guy here and there, but it mostly just hoping they get lucky with a roster of guys that everything just clicks for them and they win enough to stay competitive all year.

84 89 98 03 07 08

Then finally a run with a talented group of young cost controlled talent 15-20

25

 

 

 

 

 

Without looking, who was the highest paid player on the 2016 team?

[Rcal10]

37 minutes ago, chibears55 said:

Im not saying Happ, Suzuki, or Imanaga are overpaid, or even Swanson for that matter, my point is that although they are good to very good players they are not stars.

Hoyer with the budget he is given has to build a roster with guys who you hope can give you that surplus value so they are able to compete, and as I was pointing out in my post, when these are your top 4 paid players on your roster, although they are good players how confidence are you in the 4 of them to carry them to another 90+ win season without a true star quality player or two leading them.

It not a knock on the players, it a knock on how this team is run, we have seen it for 50 years when it comes to the Cubs, yea they grab a guy here and there, but it mostly just hoping they get lucky with a roster of guys that everything just clicks for them and they win enough to stay competitive all year.

84 89 98 03 07 08

Then finally a run with a talented group of young cost controlled talent 15-20

25

 

 

 

 

 

How does Jed go about getting “star” players? By signing mega deals? Does ownership and the FO strike you as being willing to do that. I don’t agree you have to have superstars to win the WS. Teams win a WS. Not individuals. But if the Cubs really need to sign a superstar to win a WS, they will never win. That isn’t how they do things. Jed has put together a group of good players and built a good team. Sure, I wish they would go further. I wish they flexed their financial muscle, but ownership isn’t going to do that, therefore they aren’t getting the star player. 

[CubinNY]

44 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

This isn't basketball, or NFL quarterbacks or whatever. Mike Trout has one 90 win season in his career. They're good players making good player money. The surplus value doesn't or shouldn't come from the free agency market where you generally have to outbid 29 other teams. It comes from the players you develop, and we're (finally) getting that now. 

Yes!!! That's the point, isn't it? You generate value by underpaying rookies and preabritation players. and squeeze the arbitration lemon as hard as you can. Then you supplement them with "stars" or whatever and can't necessarily squeeze out value, because it's not there.  

[squally1313]

Just now, CubinNY said:

Yes!!! That's the point, isn't it? You generate value by underpaying rookies and preabritation players. and squeeze the arbitration lemon as hard as you can. Then you supplement them with "stars" or whatever and can't necessarily squeeze out value, because it's not there.  

Yeah I mean, it's not a salary cap league so obviously there's more complexity there. But, at a huge oversimplification, the 2025 Cubs were better than the 2023 Cubs because Michael Busch and PCA were a lot better than Christopher Morel, Nick Madrigal, and Patrick Wisdom. Dansby, Nico, Happ, Suzuki....those guys are essentially metronomes of above average performance.

And having more Busch/PCAs, and also the Miguel Amayas and 2025 Matt Shaws of the world to avoid spending 10x those guys on Carson Kelly or Justin Turner or Colin Rea or whatever, keeps the bank account that much more open to overpay stars. Now that we have all those guys, we, in theory, have so much more room to aim high, and we just aren't.

The fact that it's, at most, a one year crunch, makes it even more frustrating. Going into 2027 we have $55m committed and can pencil in Dansby, Maton, Steele, Assad, Amaya, Busch, PCA, Palencia, Horton, and Shaw just from the 26 man roster. That's what...24 wins right there? Before Ballesteros, Caissie, Wiggins, Alcantara, etc, and with $200m to spend after that. There's good players out there, and we're going to both need them and be able to afford them in a year. We should be flying past the luxury tax limit (Ricketts problem), and the fact that we've shown no signs of coming close to it (Hoyer problem, problem) is maddening. 

[Gjfificifjdej]

1 hour ago, squally1313 said:

Yeah I mean, it's not a salary cap league so obviously there's more complexity there. But, at a huge oversimplification, the 2025 Cubs were better than the 2023 Cubs because Michael Busch and PCA were a lot better than Christopher Morel, Nick Madrigal, and Patrick Wisdom. Dansby, Nico, Happ, Suzuki....those guys are essentially metronomes of above average performance.

And having more Busch/PCAs, and also the Miguel Amayas and 2025 Matt Shaws of the world to avoid spending 10x those guys on Carson Kelly or Justin Turner or Colin Rea or whatever, keeps the bank account that much more open to overpay stars. Now that we have all those guys, we, in theory, have so much more room to aim high, and we just aren't.

The fact that it's, at most, a one year crunch, makes it even more frustrating. Going into 2027 we have $55m committed and can pencil in Dansby, Maton, Steele, Assad, Amaya, Busch, PCA, Palencia, Horton, and Shaw just from the 26 man roster. That's what...24 wins right there? Before Ballesteros, Caissie, Wiggins, Alcantara, etc, and with $200m to spend after that. There's good players out there, and we're going to both need them and be able to afford them in a year. We should be flying past the luxury tax limit (Ricketts problem), and the fact that we've shown no signs of coming close to it (Hoyer problem, problem) is maddening. 

To be fair to the Cubs, you have no idea how much money will be available to spend in 2027 after the lockout. 

[Rcal10]

5 minutes ago, Gjfificifjdej said:

To be fair to the Cubs, you have no idea how much money will be available to spend in 2027 after the lockout. 

The cubs using uncertainty in the new CBA to not spend money is complete BS. No outcome of the next CBA will hurt them moving forward. It is just an excuse not to spend. 

[squally1313]

5 minutes ago, Gjfificifjdej said:

To be fair to the Cubs, you have no idea how much money will be available to spend in 2027 after the lockout. 

Im also fairly tired of this whole ‘the cubs are uniquely approaching free agency with an eye towards this hypothetical lockout. None of the other big teams seem to be shying away from signing long term deals with elite players, but still, Clean Books.’ Like the mlb is going to force the dodgers to cut Ohtani or something.