MSG T

Why would they care about his strikeout issues? He's pretty consistently had an ISOd of .100. His worst at any level was .078 in 15 PAs in rookie league ball where he still had an OBP of .533. I'm not saying his strikeout rates should be ignored, but his walk rate should also be considered. I realize it isn't a direct translation but his MiL BB/K ratio is almost identical to Aramis' ML BB/K ratio. As I've said in other threads, there are quite a few hitters in the Cubs system that I worry about when it comes to strikeouts, patience and pitch recognition and Jackson isn't one of them.

I don't doubt that there may be a hold up related to Darvish. I do doubt the holdup is on the Cubs end as I think they'd be willing to sign both now, assuming they get the bid on YD. I'd bet the holdup on Fielder is that at least a couple of other teams allegedly involved for Fielder are bidding on Darvish and are wanting to see how that goes before going hard after Prince. With Boras wanting the absolute best deal for Fielder, and wanting as many teams as possible involved, there's no doubt in my mind he's willing to wait.

You don't know what mediocre means. My understanding is an average everyday player is worth about 2 WAR. Fielder has been worth less than 2 WAR twice. I interchanged "average" and "mediocre". So are you arguing the semantics of "average" versus "mediocre"? Those sub-2 WAR seasons 2006 and 2008. You're being ridiculous. C'mon SSR, you know he's the only player ever to have a sub 2.0 WAR season in his first season while 22 years old.

I wouldn't mind Varitek as a back up if he came very cheap (like under $1 mil)and if they traded Geo for something decent. Otherwise, no Who's the everyday catcher then? The only way I want these guys on the Cubs is if they come on as some sort of coaches. Maybe we can hire Wakefield to teach pitchers that flame out at AA/AAA how to throw a knuckleball in hopes of reviving their careers. The discussion, as I remember it, was to go with Castillo if they traded Soto. That's what I was basing that off of. If Geo stays, I want him and Castillo/Clevenger (whoever's better coming out of ST).

I haven't seen anybody suggesting that we can't or even shouldn't spend significantly in free agency right now (though I wont presume to speak for davearm). The vocal "anti-Fielder" crowd is mostly just saying "I don't want to overpay by more than x" I wouldn't be happy with 6/150, but I think our front office is good enough to overcome the 30 mil or so they'd be overpaying by. The problem occurs when we hear people suggesting 7 or 8 years isn't likely to be a problem when -- quite frankly -- Fielder has no real chance of ever even approaching the value he'd need to. Let me pose two scenarios. Scenario 1: We sign Darvish + Fielder. Fielder get a 7 year contract. Scenario 2: We sign Darvish + Edwin Jackson. We work a trade revolving around Z + Cashner to the Marlins for Logan Morrison. We use the extra money left in the budget to sign Jorge Soler. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see much difference in value between those scenarios for 2012... but scenario 2 looks so much better for us in the mid to long terms. Overall, I don't have a problem at all with scenario 2, but you're going to have to kick in a ton of Z's money and add something else (or two) really good to get Morrison. I'm not even sure Z and Cashner are a good start. But, depending on who we lose in addition to those two, I'd have zero problem with Darvish/Jackson/Morrison for this offseason.

I wouldn't mind Varitek as a back up if he came very cheap (like under $1 mil)and if they traded Geo for something decent. Otherwise, no

My thoughts...Red Sox - yes we can hang Yankees - occasionally, yes, most of the time, no The Yankees are going out of their way to get below the tax threshold by 2014 (which, admittedly is still $189M or whatever). I just think when all is said and done over the next couple of years, the Cubs will settle in around $140-150 mil. That would put them within about 10% of the Red Sox, that's close enough to win around half the battles over FA with them. The Yankees will still have an advantage most years for most FAs. My bigger concern is that they dominate the Central, if that means dominating them in payroll too, so be it. Obviously on the field is far more important, but having a payroll that dominates them assists in that, if managed properly.

My thoughts...Red Sox - yes we can hang Yankees - occasionally, yes, most of the time, no

Soriano was a case of overpaying for the best bat available, warts and all. Fielder is also the best bat available. He also has warts. In the end, just like with Soriano, a reasonable 5-year deal would make sense. As the dollars and years climb, it becomes more and more difficult to justify. I don't necessarily disagree with this, but, there's a difference in projections for an 8 year contract to a 31 year old that averaged a tad over 3.0 WAR through his prime and the projections for a 6 year contract, going by rumors/innuendo, to a 27 year old who averaged 4.0 WAR in the years leading into his prime. I don't disagree that there are risks involved with Fielder, and there's little doubt in my mind that he will have a significant fall in production at a younger age than a lot of players. But, even if he has that fall in his early 30's, say 32 or 33, that still leaves him with 4-5 years of good to great production ahead of him. That's worth a 6 year contract to me. I'll be honest, unlike some on here, I wouldn't go past that, and I'd prefer a year or two shorter, but I'd go 6 years with little heartburn over it. Looking at it another way, a 32 year old Prince Fielder with one year left at, say, $25 mil is a much more tradeable asset than a 35 year old Soriano with 3 years at $18 per. Particularly when considering an AL team may be willing to take a chance as a DH and the Cubs eating little money if they receive little in return.

You also had most everybody in the 28-32 range, with Edmonds as the high end exception and Soto, I believe, on the low end. If the team was ever going to win, that was the year. Weren't we also talking then about then having a fairly short window of opportunity, assuming everyone stayed healthy? I seem to remember a lot of people saying things about them not setting up well for a long run.

We only know the first part in hindsight. And Zambrano was freshly turned 26 and coming off 4 straight seasons of 4 WAR, two of which were 5. Yes, he was having a bit of a down year in 07, but to say that at age 26 it was clear that he was on the decline is wrong. Fukudome got more money than people expected and wasn't as good as expected. Didn't Fukudome reportedly take LESS money than what was being offered to him elsewhere to sign with the Cubs? I don't remember if it was verified or not, but IIRC, there were reports that he turned down a bigger offer somewhere else to play in Chicago. For some reason I want to say it was the Mets or Dodgers, but I could very well be mistaken.

No they aren't. They were instrumental in the only really successful team Hendry put together. Soriano is the one everybody focuses on because they are blinded by the dollar signs. But Dempster and Zambrano have both been worth a boatload to the Cubs while being here. Hendry messed up just about everywhere else. You don't put all your hopes on young arms and then hire Dusty Freaking Baker. The outfield was an absolute wasteland due to a lack of anything resembling a major league bat coming up through the system, which practically forced Hendry to sign Soriano that offseason. But again, Fielder is not Soriano. Soriano was a highly flawed hitter without a position who was in his 30's. Even with all his flaws, if you signed Soriano to that contract when he was Fielder's age, he would have lived up to the deal and you wouldn't be crying about him. Fielder is not Soriano. I never said he was. I support the Cubs signing Fielder to a reasonable deal and preferred him to Pujols. I was originally responding to the premise that the large contracts given out by Hendry aren't part of the reason the Cubs are in the position they are in now. They're not the only reason, and the terrible drafts are a larger part, but they're certainly a part of the problem. Having the 2008 team on your resume where everyone had a career year doesn't excuse those contracts either. But how many of those guys had career years? DeRosa? Edmonds had an unexpected monster comeback. Soto had a great season. Who else? Z, Soriano, Ramirez, Lee and Fukudome all had other years that were better, in most cases way better. It wasn't about everyone having career years, it was about everyone being good and, for the most part, healthy.

No we don't. So it's not a problem that we gave superstar money to Soriano and Zambrano, and gave $12 million a year to solid players like Fududome? We're just going to blame this mess all on John Stocksill and Jim Hendry signing guys on the margin like John Grabow? They drafted like crap and focused on nonsense. I'd add the development part also. Drafting free swinging, aggressive hitters with little knowledge of the strike zone and then emphasizing that aggressive style all through the system hurt immensely. See Vitters, Colvin etc. Maybe those guys don't end up much better, but the lack of any organizational philosophy including patience did as much damage as the drafting.

A big part of that isn't the contracts, per se, but how they were managed/dealt with. The Cubs were in the middle of a bunch of those contracts all at the same time, so they didn't have any coming of the books. Now, that helps as they stand now, with a bunch of them coming off within two off-seasons and freeing up a ton of money. And to be honest, having so many guys in the middle of their contracts at once doesn't hurt if they all don't go bad. Aramis spent the bulk of two full season hurt, Z had all of his issues, Fukudome slid downhill each season, Soriano got bad fast, Dempster had his issues. It wasn't so much the contracts, it's who they were given to and what happened with that player that hurt. Basically, to echo what others have said, giving a big contract to a young, good player doesn't hurt, much of the time. Giving a big contract to an older, not so good player, will hurt eventually pretty much all of the time. Soriano's contract, while not hamstringing the Cubs, was foreseeable. Pretty much everyone on here pointed out what that deal would look like the last 2-4 years, the only argument was how long he'd hold some semblance of value. But it wasn't because they handed out an 8-year contract that caused them problems, it was the fact that they gave an 8 year contract to a non-elite 31 year old that had skills that are easily diminished and contact problems. Big difference there.

I can't find the exact rule, but according to this article, it's seven seasons. Which, I think, means he would be eligible to leave following next season? Doesn't sound right, but I can't find the exact date. http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/23/japan-baseball-players-lifestyle-sport-japan-baseball.html

I got it, but when I see, he went from second to home 4 of 12, that says to me he went to home 12 times and was successful 4 times, thus thrown out 8 times.

OK, but I was basing my comments off of this, which doesn't mention stopping at 3B. I realize you edited it later to read 14 times and not 12.

Is that saying he was only on 2nd 12 times when a single was hit. That seems insanely low to me. It looks like he tried scoring on a single while at 2B 12 times. He may have gone from 2B to 3B 20 times on a single (made up number based on that not being posted). That can't be the correct interpretation. Otherwise he's thrown out at home the other 8 times. That clearly isn't right. ??? What's not correct? I was just throwing a number out there, but if he was on 2B 32 times when a single was hit and stopped at 3B 20 of those times, would that not account for the 12 times (or 14 on the edit provided) he tried scoring? And that he was successful 4 of those times he tried to score? Heck, he could have stayed at second 20 times on a single also. Those numbers weren't given, just the number of times he went from 2B to home on a single. How many times did he stop at 3B? How many times did he stay at 2B?

Is that saying he was only on 2nd 12 times when a single was hit. That seems insanely low to me. It looks like he tried scoring on a single while at 2B 12 times. He may have gone from 2B to 3B 20 times on a single (made up number based on that not being posted).

So tell him to never take an extra base under any circumstance.

I understand that part. It changes based on other players and what replacement level is each year. My bigger question is really the defense and baserunning. I mean, he lost almost 2.0 WAR to those two. I realize he isn't the greatest defensive 1B ever, nor the greatest baserunner, but he's that many runs below replacement? Really. Those two things really hit his overall worth that season, much more than any of his other years. I just don't see the issues some others see. There's no doubt in my mind, he'll never be a consistent 6.0-7.0 WAR player like Pujols has been. But looking at his age and his numbers, I also have no doubt he'll average 4.5-5.0 for the next 3-4 seasons. He does that, then have a couple in the 3.0-3.5 range, he'd be worth signing. Would his value be at what he's paid? Probably not. But, would he be worth it for the Cubs to sign, even figuring overpaying some? I think so.

I have a question regarding Fielder, and somewhat in general about WAR. Looking at his stats there's something quirky about his 2008 season, and I think it partially affects judgement on him overall. He had a .370 wOBA and a 130 OPS+ that year which, to be fair, were the lowest of the last 5 seasons. However, neither were that much lower than 2010, where he had a .380 wOBA and a 135 OPS+. On the negative side, he lost almost a full point of WAR each for fielding (-9.2 runs) and baserunning (-9.8 runs). Here's where my question(s) come in. First, am I converting the runs into wins correctly? Meaning, I using 10 runs per win, I think that's what I saw in Baseball Between the Numbers. Second, how accurate are those figures for fielding and baserunning? Assuming I'm translating correctly, how do we know he was worth 19 runs less than replacement in those two areas? Third, it also appears, based on oWAR from his b-r page, that there was a quirk that year. Despite being very similar to 2010 in raw numbers, his oWAR for 2008 was a full win lower than 2010. Isn't it possible that season he was a victim of weird circumstances? I'm not trying to say I'm looking at these in the right way, just trying to understand why 2008 and 2010 look extremely similar but there's a difference of almost 2.0 WAR there.

It is when your stated goal is to acquire assets. Unequivocally wrong. Maybe if we always have backtobanks working on the deals. I'm baffled here, jersey. You don't think you can acquire assets in a trade? Even if it's not a windfall, you can trade from strength or quantity to acquire assets to fill a need or lack of quality. Your posts on this issue are indefensible. I don't disagree with your concept in general, but... how many assets do the Cubs currently have that they can turn into other assets that will help long term and short term? I see, currently, 2-3 (Garza, Marmol, maybe Soto, Maybe McNutt) that might be able to provide equal/greater assets coming back, both in terms of numbers and talent. Everyone else they currently have available for trade would either bring back an equal player, who most likely won't help near term, or less talent but possibly payroll relief (Soriano, Z). If they had the farm system that I envision 2/3/4 years down the road, I'd be fully on board with what you're saying. But now, the ability to acquire talent/production long and short term without giving up assets is huge. Guys like Soler, Cespedes, Darvish, Fielder, Jackson, any of the non-tender candidates would/could help immediately and long term (another 3-5 years). Even if you have to overpay to some degree, that sets you up to be competitive now AND gives you options to improve later. Again, I agree, in theory, with what you're saying. I just don't think that fits the Cubs that well as they are currently constructed. They have plenty of guys that could get usable players as a return. Just not so much that could get good, long term solutions.

If you're thinking the Cubs take that to the Reds, I'd hope Jed/Theo think better of it before picking up the phone.

This list is part of my concern over passing on Prince. Smoak may well not be available, there's no reason why Blanks and Davis would be available for anything reasonable, Barton may well not slug over .400, Trumbo is really bad, Sanchez may not be available and is 30 years old, and Snider has a .307 career OBP. Will Logan Morrison hit enough to be a first baseman? I hadn't really seriously considered him for first, but if the thought is he'll hit enough to play first then that'd be a good move. Morales I like if healthy, but that's a big if. Reynolds interested me as a buy-low option at third, but I seriously doubt he hits enough to be passable at first. Lind is another guy (as you pointed out) with an awful OBP, though that could be fixed maybe. These guys would be ok on 1 year contracts I guess, but I'm not convinced they'll settle for that and I think the offers will be greater. I have no interest in any of them on more than one year deals. Basically I'm seeing 3 options for the Cubs if they pass on Prince: 1) Overpay severely in prospects for a possible long term option (Smoak, Davis, Blanks) 2) Go with a one-dimensional option offensively in Barton (OBP only) or Snider/Lind (SLG only) and hope that elite offensive players without flaws (if they exist) come available that we're willing to sign in the near future 3) Grab an old placeholder and hope for a breakout year each season - a very small market-esque strategy I pretty much agree with everything you have here. I'd also add Morrison in with Blanks and Davis as far as availbility. I'd love to have him, but it would cost a ton to get him.