CubFanPhilly

What are Hills 2007 stats compared to Santana's? Hill 195 IP, 3.92 ERA, 119 ERA+, 8.45 K/9, 1.195 WHIP, 40.3 VORP Santana 219 IP, 3.33 ERA, 130 ERA+, 9.66 K/9, 1.073 WHIP, 57.7 VORP

OK, I'll bite. Santana is obviously much better than Hill. But I'd keep Hill and pass on Santana. Assuming you can sign Santana at all, he'll cost $16-17 mil/year and the prospects you gave up to obtain him. Over the same time period Hill and those prospects (those that pan out anyway) cost a small fraction of Santana's price. Is Santana plus Pie/Murton/Colvin (whichever low cost OF you an plug in) better than Hill plus whatever OF or SS bat you can buy for $16-17 mil? Examples: [Hill + Fukudome + $5 mil.] vs [santana + Murton] [HIll + Tejada + $3 mil. - Pie or Murton/Marshall/Marmol (whatever the package is to obtain Tejada)] vs. [santana + Pie/Murton] [Hill + Crawford + $6 mil - Pie/Marmol/Cedeno] vs. [santana + Colvin/Patterson] I'd be interested if the package was something revolving around 3 or 4 of the this group: Pie, Murton, Marmol, Marshall, Patterson, Gallagher, Veal, Donaldson, & Colvin. I agree that the Twins probably insist on Hill, and I'd pass.

An average starter has an ERA+ around 95. Yes, and what's your point? Those numbers are very mediocre considering what the Cubs paid Maddux.

I'm not a big Hendry fan, in fact I'd probably go all Sean Marshall on his cats if given the chance, but this statement is not fair. Hendry has been flogged over and over and over and over again about not having a backup plan for Wood and Prior's injuries. The fact that he had one in there in Maddux is supposed to be a strike against him? Signing an above average starter for 8M per is a strike against him? There's A LOT to bring out against Hendry, the Maddux signing is not one of those things. I believe those who flogged Hendry for failing to a have a backup plan did so during the 2005 season. Wood and Prior were healthy in 2003. I've never blamed Hendry for failing to have a backup plan in 2005. In fact, I'd argue if he had gone out and signed another FA starter in the 2004-2005 offseason we'd be in a bigger mess now. I was trying give the context of the market price that off season, not compare signings. Sure, there were much worse signings than Maddux that year (I wasn't trying to cherry-pick). But the Maddux contract was no bargain and a waste of resource allocation. Do you really think the cost/benefit analysis of the Maddux signing doesn't bear that out? I remember plenty of others on the board saying the same thing at the time of the signing - long before I ever did. They were right.

Well, I admit I loved the signing for sentimental reasons, but I recall thinking it was a dumb personnel decision. - It wasn't an area of need on a team with a few holes (terrible SS, awful bench, weak bullpen). Starters were Wood, Prior, Clement, Zambrano, with plenty of cheap options for fifth starter. - The contract wasn't a bargain. There were at least a dozen guys signed for less (Buehrle, Batista, Eaton, F. Garcia, D. Lowe, Ponson, Suppan to name a few.) In fact it was the the fifth richest SP contract that off-season, behind Colon, Wood, Pettite, and Halladay. - Very mediocre performance: ERA+ 109, 104, 99 With the Wood and Prior injuries, Hendry came out looking smarter than he deserved.

I agree that's a big factor, but I think the 2004 disaster, the pending ownership change, and the hiring of Lou ignited this disaster. [New Rant] The insane plan starts around the 2004-2005 offseason. After the disappointment in 2003, there's the awful Maddux signing. Hey, I love the guy, but did anyone think a backloaded $24 mil. deal was the smart thing to do? Especially when he slotted as the fourth or fifth starter? The Nomar acquisition was a bold move, but it didn't overcome a dismal performance of a 2004 team loaded with talent. Sosa's performance dropped off a cliff while he was still owed $33 mil. So the Cubs re-sign Nomar to a reasonable deal, each the last year of Sosa's contract, and start to get desperate. $35 mil. of the 2005 payroll goes to players who contribute little or nothing (Sosa, Wood, Nomar). In 2006 it's $27 mil. wasted. MacPhail resigns, and the Tribune makes a bold committment. Hire Lou, open the vault, and sign everybody in sight. Sign Soriano to a huge backloaded contract even though he plays a position where you have one of your best young talents. Sign him even though he's 30. Even though his career OBP is not much better than the god awful .319 put up by the 2006 team. Now there's far too much committed - promises to the fans, Lou, Soriano, Lilly, et. al. Surely they must find the one or two bats to put them over the top... I fear 2009-2010 may look a lot like 2005-2006. [/End Rant] *Edit - in fairness, the "insane plan" is probably no plan at all. It's the lack of a plan. Reaction to bad luck (Wood, Prior, Nomar injuries), and mistakes (Pierre, and multitudes of smaller errors: Rusch, Izturis, Jones, Blanco et. al.). **Edit two typos.

Craig, First off, most of this rant reflects an anti-Hendry bias. I believe his actions are harming the future of the club. Agreed. Payroll inflates. If payroll grows at the same average rate as the last five years, the commitments roughly represent: 2008 93%, 2009 88%, 2010 64%, 2011 40%. Without assuming any back-loading, I'll layer on a 3-year and 4-year deals to Matsui & Fukudome: 2008 100%, 2009 101%, 2010 76%, 2011 49%. That's without filling three holes in the bullpen left by Howry, Dempster & Eyre in 2009. There's always the possibility of moving contracts, but the 2009 contracts are already almost immovable: Marquis will be earning $9.8 mil., Lilly $13 mil. Meanwhile a couple of young talents like Hill, Murton, Marmol and Marshall will be moving into arbitration years. True, if you pick wisely. I don't trust Hendry to do so. I'd rather he picked up someone with a track record a short contract and gamble that the player stays healthy and productive. As an organizational philosophy, I agree with your point. In the context of the Cub situation, I think it's a potential disaster. Fukudome may turn out to be a very good ML player. And I think there's a decent chance he will be. But in my opinion, it would be disasterous for the Cubs to be wrong about him. I'm confused on this one. I agree it would be a bad idea to assume Tejada, Griffey or others would perform. I'd want to hear from my scouts, have a full medical report, etc. It's a sane decision because it's lower risk in both the short-term and the long-term. It's the right thing for Hendry to do, knowing the ownership is about to change. Again, I agree with your point as an organizational philosophy. I disgree that it's the right thing to do in the Cubs present situation. CFP

The Cubs are committed to a win now mode. Lou's got two years left. Hendry's working on borrowed time. $106 mil. committed for 2008 and plans to take that payroll to $115-120 mil. $107 mil. committed for 2009 without replacing Howry, Eyre or Dempster in the bullpen. $81 mil. in 2010 for five players. $53 mil. in 2011-2012 for three. Most of the players with big contracts also have NTCs: Zambrano, Lee, Ramirez, Soriano, & Lilly. So, while I don't like the situation, I think the only reasonable course of action is to go for it. But give me short-term commitments over the next two years. Let a new GM work with as clean of a slate as possible in 2010 and beyond. I'd be looking for productive players at the end of their contracts over long-term FA contracts. Give me: Crawford, Griffey, Tejada, Dunn, Church, Burrell, Freel, etc. -or short-term or "make good" deals to fill a hole: Bradley, Lofton, or L. Gonzalez Instead, Hendry's reportedly pursuing Fukudome and Matsui. If he gets them, the Cubs will likely overpay for both. And unless they have money to burn, the new ownership will be hamstrung for the next five years.

:? Yeah, so I'm not counting on Hendry being smart. There are plenty of factors complicating a deal: the NTC, Jr's groin injury, the fact that he's seven homers shy of 600, all the deferred money in his deal (which I'd be expecting the Reds to pick up, obviously). But it looks like Hendry's ready to shell out more money than Jr. and Freel will earn for Matsui and Fukudome. Personally, I'd prefer two short-term commitments and I think [Jr. + Freel & Wood ~$18 mil] > [Marmol + Fukudome + Matsui & Marshall ~$15-18 mil.].

Jr. has a NTC and are you sure JH would have done that? I think Jr. would waive it. He has a good relationship with Lou. His time is running out and the Cubs chances of contending are much better than the Reds' in '08. And yes, I doubt Hendry would've done it.

Griffey and Freel for Marmol and Marshall would've been a hell of a lot smarter.

So, that would be this Wednesday if I'm not mistaking, right? Somewhere in there.

What if they asked for Marquis, Marshall and Pie? I'd say no, but how about Marquis, Marshall and Cedeno?

Of course the Cubs could spend $14 mil./year on better players than Drew. But the premise was unloading the $16 mil. still owed to Marquis. I also added the $6.33 owed to Jones to the deal. Drew 14/14/14/14 (with the injury clauses providing some insurance) or Jones+Marquis 12.7/Marquis 9.9 IMO Drew + (Gallagher, Hart, Marmol, Mateo, Dempster, or Prior) > Jones + Marquis

Adrian Peterson

Perhaps. In a deal to net a significant upgrade at SS? Yes absolutely. For example: Pie, Gallagher, Veal, Prior, & Cedeno for Tejada & Bedard Payroll w/ Drew, Tejada, & Bedard (assuming ~$8 mil. in arbitration for Bedard), signing Wood to a $5 mil incentive-based deal, less Jones & Marquis, is roughly $118 mil. in '08. (Without assuming the Red Sox or Orioles give you any payroll relief in return.) The problem might be 2009, when (I believe) Bedard hits FA ($119 mil. committed w/o signing him). Soriano Lee Tejada Ramirez Drew De Rosa Murton Soto Zambrano, Bedard, Lilly, Hill, Marshall/Marmol/Hart/et. al. Dempster, Howry, Marmol, Wood, Wuertz, Eyre Ward, Theriot, Blanco, Patterson, Fontenot/Fox/Craig/Hoffpauir Is Patterson your backup CF? That would be one nice lineup but I'd slide Tejada down under Ramirez. If you have Z pitching it would make a heck of a 9 hitter wise. Yes, or Pagan in a pinch. Given Drew's durability track record, I'd rather keep Pie. Maybe subtract Bedard from the Baltimore deal and hold on to Pie and Prior or Veal.

Perhaps. In a deal to net a significant upgrade at SS? Yes absolutely. For example: Pie, Gallagher, Veal, Prior, & Cedeno for Tejada & Bedard Payroll w/ Drew, Tejada, & Bedard (assuming ~$8 mil. in arbitration for Bedard), signing Wood to a $5 mil incentive-based deal, less Jones & Marquis, is roughly $118 mil. in '08. (Without assuming the Red Sox or Orioles give you any payroll relief in return.) The problem might be 2009, when (I believe) Bedard hits FA ($119 mil. committed w/o signing him). Soriano Lee Tejada Ramirez Drew De Rosa Murton Soto Zambrano, Bedard, Lilly, Hill, Marshall/Marmol/Hart/et. al. Dempster, Howry, Marmol, Wood, Wuertz, Eyre Ward, Theriot, Blanco, Patterson, Fontenot/Fox/Craig/Hoffpauir

That doesn't help that much for salary relief, does it? No it doesn't. It's payroll neutral in 2008 and +$5 mil. in 2009. But I was looking for a creative way to unload Marquis and Jones while upgrading the offense a bit. Marquis competes with Lester, Tavarez, Bucholz and Wakefield for their 4th/5th starter spots. Wakefield may not have much left in the tank. Bucholz had shoulder issues. Marquis is better than Lester or Tavarez. Looking closer though, I doubt the Red Sox would be interested in Ohman - they have two solid lefties in the pen. Drew would be a risk, but he's a high OBP bat with some pop. I think he could he play some CF (at least at Wrigley). I'd play him full-time between CF/RF with Pie/Murton. Maybe throw in a prospect or two instead of Ohman and ask for some cash in the deal.

Marquis, Jones & Ohman for J.D. Drew.

The limited seating capacity may hinder the ability to add marginal revenue. Almost all of the additional revenue has to be captured by ticket price increases because obviously the park is nearly filled to capacity every game. But on the other hand, the lack of unutilized cheaper seats probably enhances the Cubs and the Red Sox to sustain price increases because the fans don't have the option of downgrading to less expensive seats. In other words, the demand for Red Sox and Cubs tickets is less price elastic than the demand for Yankees tickets. Here's a further breakdown of attendance and revenue data: [Avg. Price] [Est. 2007 Gate] [Capacity] [Attendance] [% Capacity] Red Sox $46.47 $138.1 mil. 2.95 mil 2.97 mil 101.4% Cubs $34.30 $111.5 mil. 3.33 mil. 3.25 mil. 97.7% Yankees $28.27 $120.8 mil. 4.85 mil. 4.27 mil. 88.1% Cardinals $29.78 $105.8 mil. 3.57 mil. 3.55 mil. 99.4% Mets $25.28 $97.4 mil. 4.73 mil. 3.85 mil. 81.4% Note: the estimated gate is just the average price x the attendance. Actual revenue generated was probably higher, particularly for teams with a lower pct. of capacity because unsold seats were probably the cheaper seats.

Average Ticket Prices (2006) Red Sox $46.47 Cubs $34.30 Yankees $28.27 Cardinals $29.78 Mets $25.28 MLB Avg. $22.21 It would take roughly a $9 (or 25%) increase in ticket prices to recoup the cost of ARod. TV revenues play a part, but unless you're in a position to exploit the additional ratings (e.g., YES Network), those added revenues are shared with others (e.g., Comcast) or delayed because the TV contracts aren't renewed each year. Domestic merchandise sales are shared across the league (not much help there). The park is already virtually sold out each year, so there's very little impact on attendance. Ironically, the Tribune Company is best positioned to realize the benefit of adding a player like ARod because they'll benefit from the likely bump in WGN ratings. CFP

Anyone in favor of going the deferred compensation route (e.g., Griffey & the Reds)? Consider this contract: 8 years/$261 mil. 15, 15, 15, 30, 30, 30, 30, 30, 22, 22, 22 $66 mil. deferred to years 9-11 -Present value of the deal is slightly greater than A Rod's remaining deal, plus the 5 year/$150 mil. the Yankees were reported to offer. -Boras gets to sell it as the richest deal in ML history (8-year $261 mil.). -A Rod gets to play SS again and for Lou. -Cubs get some near-term payroll relief (at least until D Lee's off the books). Assuming the payroll budget grows by 5% per year, A. Rod's portion of the budget would be as follows: 13%, 13%, 12%, 23%, 22%, 21%, 20%, 19%, (and the three years he's no longer playing: 13%, 13%, 12%). If the Cubs were confident they could developing pitching and a replacement for Lee, I'd have to think hard about it. CFP

Plug in A Rod at 8/240 mil with the scheduled payroll and you get approximately $140 mil. committed for 2008 and 2009. That includes $6 mil. to re-sign Wood and Prior to 1-year deals (not including the incentives you'd likely need). -Backload a bit and it's 134/134. -Cut Wood & Prior loose it's 128/134. -Deal Dempster or Jones it's 122/134. -Deal Marquis it's 116/124 (assuming somebody takes on his full contract). As others have said it's 2009 that's the problem. 124-134 committed with half the bullpen and at least one starter position to fill. As far as re-capturing the investment, well if you did it with ticket prices alone, you'd have to increase prices by $10 per seat. Hello, $52 bleacher seats. Not likely, but my fingers are crossed anyway. I think it'd take a modest discount by A Rod to even begin a discussion. CFP

I see people including Hart in a pool of 5 or 6 competing for 5th starter if Marshall and/or Gallagher are dealt. Who's calling him untouchable?

Time to recap the no-trade clauses Hendry's been handing out: Ramirez (full) Lee (limited) Soriano (full) Zambrano (full) Lilly (limited)