davearm2

Based on what? Based on trying to scrape together $13M to give to Holliday.

Do we think the Cubs even have room in the budget to add another $13M player next year, in addition to all of the other raises that are already due? That's a big chunk of cash. I'd guess at a bare minimum, it means Dempster, Eyre, and Howry cannot be re-upped. And perhaps Wood too. And you figure at least a few of the logical cheap replacements for the above will be headed to COL in the deal.

The argument isn't over what the player's on-field production has or hasn't been worth. The argument is over which contract path leads to the higher payment stream, the early extension or the year-to-year.

tell fukudome sorry for breaking our promise and put him in centerfield. Or, Soriano could still cover enough ground in CF to not be a liability. He tweaked his leg hopping in LF. I don't need to see him diving for balls in CF. I never understood the notion that playing CF represented a larger injury risk than playing LF or RF. All three positions are called upon to sprint/dive/crash into walls chasing after balls. All three positions have large areas to either side of them that they're responsible for covering. A CF only does more running laterally if it's the case that more balls are hit into the gaps than are hit into the corners. I wouldn't guess that's true, although maybe it is. About the only thing you can say about CF is there's more space between you and the wall behind you to cover. This ought to increase the sprinting component, but might actually reduce the crashing into walls component.

well carlos pena and john lackey were worth about $37M last year alone, so if i'm understanding your analysis, you're extremely wrong. You're not understanding the analysis. It's not about what their on-field performance was worth. It's about what they would've gotten paid if, instead of giving them 6 years and $31M after one year, just as the Rox did with Tulowitzki, you went year-to-year instead. In both cases, going year-to-year would've been far cheaper, as I've illustrated.

I think they represent a large risk exposure for a relatively small gain. You price a guy as though he stays healthy and productive for the next 6 or 7 years. If he does exactly that, it's basically a wash -- he'll be getting paid about what the arb process would've awarded him anyway. If he blows up and overperforms expectations, you've landed a bargain. But if he regresses, gets hurt, loses interest, etc. etc., you're left holding a large bill for a lot of years. Small upside, large downside, comparatively. You've got no choice but to accept this risk if you're talking about a free agent. If you won't jump in with both feet, the guy will just sign with someone else that will. But with these young guys, you already control the player for all but the last 1 or 2 years. They're not going anywhere. So why assume all of that risk unnecessarily, is my feeling.

I think you'd be surprised, guys. Let's use the contract Troy Tulowitzki got -- 6/$31M, with a $15M option on a 7th year -- after finishing second in ROY voting. That contract calls for $5.5M in year 4, $8.5M in year 5, and $10M in year 6. Now let's look at the ROY vote-getters from the year 2002. If these players had been signed to the same deal that Tulowitzki got, they'd have been paid $8.5M last year, and $10M this year. 1 Eric Hinske TOR 2 Rodrigo Lopez BAL 3 Jorge Julio BAL 4 Bobby Kielty MIN 4 John Lackey ANA 6 Josh Phelps TOR 7 Kevin Mench TEX 8 Mark Ellis OAK 8 Tony Fiore MIN 8 Dustan Mohr MIN 8 Carlos Pena TOT 1 Jason Jennings COL 2 Brad Wilkerson MON 3 Austin Kearns CIN 4 Kazuhisa Ishii LAD 5 Damian Moss ATL 6 Ryan Jensen SFG 7 Josh Fogg PIT 7 Mark Prior CHC 9 Alex Sanchez MIL 9 Jason Simontacchi STL 9 Dennis Stark COL There's not a single name on that list that you would've wanted for $8.5M last year, or $10M this year. Wrong I'd be damn happy to have Carlos Pena or John Lackey at those salaries for last year and this year. Carlos Pena made $800K in '07, and will make $6M in '08. $6.8M total. Lackey made $5.5M in '07, and will make $7M in '08. $12.5M total. You gave each $18.5M. I'd say they should be damn happy, and you should be looking for a new job.

This completely misses the point. The Cubs don't need to do one of these early multiyear deals with Soto, in part because they've been 100% successful locking up the guys they want to keep when they're on the verge of reaching free agency. Ramirez was making less than what Soto will make via the arbitration process, assuming he continues posting .900 OPSs for the next 5 years. Same with DLee. Raimrez made $3M in his first arb year, and $6M in his second, as part of a 3-year deal he signed while in Pittsburgh. Then he signed a multiyear deal with the Cubs that spanned his final arb year and his first three FA years. Lee went year-to-year, getting $2.7M, then $4.25M in arb years 1 and 2. Arb year 3 was absorbed into the 3-year deal he signed after being traded here. Soto's level of financial security will be no different than these guys' were at the time they inked longterm deals with the Cubs, again, provided he remains healthy and productive. Now he may prefer to sign an early extension that locks him in through his arb years, but the Cubs have little incentive to give it to him. Except the incentive of paying less in the long run. Paying less in the long run is only one possibility. Another possibility is that the extension guarantees higher salaries than the player would've earned if taken year-to-year... possibly much higher. In the end, this discussion is moot without any hard figures. If Soto wanted to sell his next 5 seasons for $10M, then you have to take it. But if I'm running the team, unless I'm getting a real sweetheart deal like that, I'm keeping my options open and going year-to-year. If the guy blows up and winds up costing me more than I could've gotten him for, then that's a nice problem to have. What's not a nice problem to have is having $6 or $8M a year committed for another 2-3 years on the next Rocco Baldelli... or Mark Prior for that matter. Just imagine how much worse that Prior situation would've been if he was making Tulowitzki money.

This completely misses the point. The Cubs don't need to do one of these early multiyear deals with Soto, in part because they've been 100% successful locking up the guys they want to keep when they're on the verge of reaching free agency. Ramirez was making less than what Soto will make via the arbitration process, assuming he continues posting .900 OPSs for the next 5 years. Same with DLee. Raimrez made $3M in his first arb year, and $6M in his second, as part of a 3-year deal he signed while in Pittsburgh. Then he signed a multiyear deal with the Cubs that spanned his final arb year and his first three FA years. Lee went year-to-year, getting $2.7M, then $4.25M in arb years 1 and 2. Arb year 3 was absorbed into the 3-year deal he signed after being traded here (last arb year + 2 FA years). Soto's level of financial security will be no different than these guys' were at the time they inked longterm deals with the Cubs, again, provided he remains healthy and productive. Now he may prefer to sign an early extension that locks him in through his arb years, but the Cubs have little incentive to give it to him.

There's a significant difference between developing a good player and keeping him once he first reaches free agency (something this regime has never even dealt with, let alone accomplished) and resigning your own older veteran free agents. I really don't see it. Either way you're talking about locking up an important player who will soon have the option to go to the highest bidder. I'm not really sure what about the part that they're home grown makes it so different. Wasn't Aramis getting his first taste of free agency and coming off his arbitration years when he signed that deal with the Cubs? What difference does it make that he didn't actually come up with the Cubs and instead was traded to them? The Cubs have shown a propensity to keep the players they want to keep around. To me that's all there is to it. This. Key guys that are approaching free agency, the Cubs have gotten extended. It's a rule without exception. Sosa, Wood, Lee, Ramirez (twice), Zambrano. Homegrown or not homegrown is irrelevant to the topic.

There's a significant difference between developing a good player and keeping him once he first reaches free agency (something this regime has never even dealt with, let alone accomplished) and resigning your own older veteran free agents. I really don't see it. Either way you're talking about locking up an important player who will soon have the option to go to the highest bidder. I'm not really sure what about the part that they're home grown makes it so different. Wasn't Aramis getting his first taste of free agency and coming off his arbitration years when he signed that deal with the Cubs? What difference does it make that he didn't actually come up with the Cubs and instead was traded to them? The Cubs have shown a propensity to keep the players they want to keep around. To me that's all there is to it. The point is you save money, allowed you to spend more money elsewhere. You might save a little, 4 years down the road, but you won't save a lot. The flipside is, you could have a guy that's out of baseball that you're paying $6 or $8M.

Signing him through arbitration would be the worst option of all. You've got him controlled through arbitration already. The only thing you'd gain is cost certainty. As I've illustrated, that's a game in which you can win a little, or lose a lot. Buying a few free agent years is the most reasonable motivation for these early extensions, and that shouldn't be a major concern for a team like the Cubs, who have a track record of keeping their guys anyway.

How would you go about compiling a list of the players that showed the most potential to be worthy of a longterm extension after one year in the bigleagues?

I think you'd be surprised, guys. Let's use the contract Troy Tulowitzki got -- 6/$31M, with a $15M option on a 7th year -- after finishing second in ROY voting. That contract calls for $5.5M in year 4, $8.5M in year 5, and $10M in year 6. Now let's look at the ROY vote-getters from the year 2002. If these players had been signed to the same deal that Tulowitzki got, they'd have been paid $8.5M last year, and $10M this year. 1 Eric Hinske TOR 2 Rodrigo Lopez BAL 3 Jorge Julio BAL 4 Bobby Kielty MIN 4 John Lackey ANA 6 Josh Phelps TOR 7 Kevin Mench TEX 8 Mark Ellis OAK 8 Tony Fiore MIN 8 Dustan Mohr MIN 8 Carlos Pena TOT 1 Jason Jennings COL 2 Brad Wilkerson MON 3 Austin Kearns CIN 4 Kazuhisa Ishii LAD 5 Damian Moss ATL 6 Ryan Jensen SFG 7 Josh Fogg PIT 7 Mark Prior CHC 9 Alex Sanchez MIL 9 Jason Simontacchi STL 9 Dennis Stark COL There's not a single name on that list that you would've wanted for $8.5M last year, or $10M this year. Now the 2003 list. Here you're asking if you'd want the guy for $8.5M this year, and $10M next year: 1 Angel Berroa KCR 2 Hideki Matsui NYY 3 Rocco Baldelli TBD 4 Jody Gerut CLE 5 Mark Teixeira TEX 1 Dontrelle Willis FLA 2 Scott Podsednik MIL 3 Brandon Webb ARI 4 Marlon Byrd PHI 5 Miguel Cabrera FLA 5 Brad Lidge HOU 7 Jeriome Robertson HOU 8 Jose Reyes NYM 8 Ty Wigginton NYM You've got some hits and some misses, but more misses than hits. How many of these guys would you want for $5.5M this year, $8.5M next year, and $10M in 2010? 1 Bobby Crosby OAK 2 Shingo Takatsu CHW 3 Daniel Cabrera BAL 4 Zack Greinke KCR 5 Alexis Rios TOR 6 David DeJesus KCR 7 Ross Gload CHW 8 John Buck KCR 8 David Bush TOR 8 Nate Robertson DET 1 Jason Bay PIT 2 Khalil Greene SDP 3 Akinori Otsuka SDP 4 Aaron Miles COL 5 Matt Holliday COL 6 Kazuo Matsui NYM 6 Terrmel Sledge MON ... only maybe 2 or 3. These contracts *are* risky. They represent the chance to save a little if the player continues to play great, or cost a fortune if they head south.

Yup...and that would automatically disqualify him in the eyes of the Cubs organization, regardless of availability... I just LOVE our front office!! meh :cray: 2010:$21M, 2011:$23M, 2012:$21M, 2013:$21M, 2014:$21M That right there is what should automatically disqualify him.

Being fiscally responsible is not just for small market teams. The Cubs haven't really done this because they've had zero position players to even think about extending. There's a risk management element in addition to the fiscal responsibility element. The risk management element points to not offering the extension.

There's no urgency. He'd be into his arb years before I'd think about it. Teams do this a) in hopes of saving a few bucks, and b) in order to squeeze an extra year or two out of a guy before they leave. Well the Cubs need not be penny-pinchers, and Greg Maddux is probably the last frontline player that they lost to free agency. It's just not a risk the Cubs should feel they need to take.

Pie was showing he can hit righties? A .637 OPS (with a .351 BABIP no less) has you excited?

And only an idiot would believe that, because Pie has not had anything resembling a chance and Edmonds is a lock to suck. Well here's hoping Edmonds sucks as much as Theriot was guaranteed to.

So this guy sees Matsui as a DH, yet proposes trading him to an NL club? :confused:

because there is seemingly nothing left for Pie to prove or accomplish in Iowa. he dominated there for two years and still struggled when given (sporadic) time with the Cubs. he needs to be given time to adjust to MLB pitching. going back down and demolishing the PCL pitchers won't accomplish anything except unnecessarily delaying his development even further. they are winning and scoring runs with almost no production in CF against RHP. there is literally no better time for them to stick with Felix and let him take his lumps and adjust. they can afford it right now. who knows if they can in September or in 2009? it is absolutely the perfect time for him to be out there. if they aren't willing to do that now, then i have to wonder if they ever will be. It'll be interesting to see how opinions change if Pie doesn't light up AAA pitching again. Everyone seems to assume that's what will happen, but it's far from certain. Hopefully it doesn't come to that.

Speaking just for myself, the problem I have is with the (seemingly) prevailing assumption that Pie is the solution, and all that's needed is time and opportunity. Nowhere do I see anyone contemplating the possibility that the solution to the problem of who to play in CF against RHP is neither Pie, nor Edmonds, nor Johnson. Now perhaps given 5 starts a week, Pie could become this year's Pedroia or Tulowitzki. It's certainly possible. More possible, IMO, is that despite the defensive advantages he can offer, Pie remains a liability for a contending team. The guy's just not good at all right now offensively, and expecting significant improvement is really nothing more than an act of blind faith that any minute now, his MiLB success will translate to MLB success. Maybe it will, but maybe it won't. If nothing else, one thing we should recognize about Lou is that he's not one to sit on his hands and hope what isn't working suddenly will start to work. We've got three options against RHP Reed Johnson - a 31 year old OPSing .643 this year, .729 in his three-year against RHP Jim Edmonds - 37 years old, OPSing .533 this year, .755 last year (to be fair, his three-year's are good, because he crushed before falling off the map last year) Felix Pie - a 23 year old that is a better defender than Johnson or Edmonds and has succeeded after a learning curve at every level. Basically, you know that Johnson is going to be mediocre, you assume that Edmonds, with his injury past and age, will be average at best, worse than mediocre at worst, but that Pie as a chance to be more than that. Pie, at his worst, most terrible, "send his ass back to Iowa" stint has still not been as bad as Edmonds this year. When these three guys are your options, you owe it to yourself to give the one that actually might not suck a chance, and Pie hasn't seen that yet. I understand the argument perfectly. Where the Cubs' perspective seems to differ from yours is a) Pie has had a chance, and b) Edmonds might not suck. I think it's at least plausible to take the position that we're going to try something new that might not work (Edmonds), instead of continuing to hope what has already proven not to work will suddenly start working (Pie). Personally, I would stick with Pie. But I can understand the rationale for going the other direction too. And from what we know of Lou, the "try something new" approach is exactly what should be expected.

Speaking just for myself, the problem I have is with the (seemingly) prevailing assumption that Pie is the solution, and all that's needed is time and opportunity. Nowhere do I see anyone contemplating the possibility that the solution to the problem of who to play in CF against RHP is neither Pie, nor Edmonds, nor Johnson. Now perhaps given 5 starts a week, Pie could become this year's Pedroia or Tulowitzki. It's certainly possible. More possible, IMO, is that despite the defensive advantages he can offer, Pie remains a liability for a contending team. The guy's just not good at all right now offensively, and expecting significant improvement is really nothing more than an act of blind faith that any minute now, his MiLB success will translate to MLB success. Maybe it will, but maybe it won't. If nothing else, one thing we should recognize about Lou is that he's not one to sit on his hands and hope what isn't working suddenly will start to work. This doesn't make sense. If Pie is a liability, then what the hell is Johnson? He's worse than Pie against RHP. Edmonds is likely to be equal to or worse than Pie. Of course it makes sense. The best option can still be a liability.

Speaking just for myself, the problem I have is with the (seemingly) prevailing assumption that Pie is the solution, and all that's needed is time and opportunity. Nowhere do I see anyone contemplating the possibility that the solution to the problem of who to play in CF against RHP is neither Pie, nor Edmonds, nor Johnson. Now perhaps given 5 starts a week, Pie could become this year's Pedroia or Tulowitzki. It's certainly possible. More possible, IMO, is that despite the defensive advantages he can offer, Pie remains a liability for a contending team. The guy's just not good at all right now offensively, and expecting significant improvement is really nothing more than an act of blind faith that any minute now, his MiLB success will translate to MLB success. Maybe it will, but maybe it won't. If nothing else, one thing we should recognize about Lou is that he's not one to sit on his hands and hope what isn't working suddenly will start to work.

I laughed.