dew1679666265

Here's something a tad off topic - as it's a Mariners writer talking about the Mariners - but I think he sums up perfectly this debate over whether to sign a guy to a multi-year deal if you're ready to contend the next year or not. Cubs could pretty easily be inserted in place of Mariners pretty much everywhere and his point would still ring true (save for defending the Werth contract, that was awful).

I agree with your entire post except the bolded. The reason I don't want Buerhle is because the most I'd feel comfortable giving him is a 3 year contract (and even that's kinda iffy). He's been extremely solid and consistent, but there's no margin for error like there is with a guy like Wilson. If Wilson declines a little, he becomes a really good pitcher who's overpaid. If Buerhle declines a little, he becomes a mediocre starter.

I have no idea what we'd have DeRosa for. I still really like the guy after 2008, but the past two seasons he's posted a -.4 WAR and wOBAs of .241 and .297. He'll also be 37 next year and has played 73 games total the past 2 years. He'd probably come on a super cheap one year deal, but you'd have a hard time convincing me he'd be better than Flaherty/LeMaheieu/Marwin Gonzalez/just about anybody in our system at this point. 6/110 is a year too many for Wilson, but I'm fine with the AAV - $18 million. Cespedes is intriguing and I'd like to get him for a little less, but I wouldn't complain about that deal. Any offseason plan that doesn't include one of Pujols/Prince is disappointing, though.

Figured this would work best here. Thoughts? Anybody know anything about this kid or another Boras client, Hyun-Jin Ryu, who could be posted after 2012?

Bah .... sounds like just speculation by Olney, but if he's right this makes the Yankees more likely to make an all-out run at Wilson.

While I agree with your overall point, I think Z could get more than a 2/16 or 3/30 deal on the FA market. Prior to 2011, he's never posted an ERA above 3.91 and I think the good traditional numbers would cause somebody to overlook the "clubhouse cancer" issue and give him some sort of a 3/42 or 3/45 deal, 3/36 at the least.

Exactly. Take the previous salary issue we've gone through. Our problem putting together a good team hasn't been because we had Soriano on the roster. It's because we had Soriano, Grabow, Miles, Reed, Koyie, Howry, Eyre, Kosuke, Byrd, etc., on the roster at the same time (some of those were productive players, but all were overpaid). If it were Soriano and then a bunch of cheap, productive minor leaguers, we'd have been in fine shape to go get a major impact bat and field a very good team. Going forward, if we have Pujols, expensive FA reliever, overpaid gritty MI, overpaid OF, overpaid unproductive C, overpaid productive reliever, overpaid productive reliever, overpaid productive FA OF, and average-ish FA OF, all on the roster at the same time, we're going to have trouble building a good team. But if we have Pujols, a couple of homegrown stars, and a bunch of cheap, productive players, we should have no problem building a great team. The key isn't to avoid big contracts, it's giving star contracts to star players and avoiding overpaying for support players and filler. We couldn't do that under Hendry, we absolutely should be able to do that under Theo and that's why it won't cripple us in the future.

You're really confusing me right now. On one hand it appears you're saying we should pass on Pujols because we could be an awesome team in 2014 or 2015 and you think he won't help us much in those seasons (the Pujols will be past his prime, and we should wait to sign an elite player until 2014 or 2015 comments). Then in this post, you indicate you don't have a problem having Pujols in 2014 and 2015, it's the 2019, 2020, and 2021 seasons you want to save payroll flexibility for. Can you clear this up for me?

You've been pretty vocally opposed to signing marquee players this offseason or in the upcoming offseasons. I could be reading it wrong, but questioning the timing of signing an elite player and talking about wasting Pujols' prime years sounds like you oppose the idea of signing elite players until the ideal time. Am I wrong in that interpretation? If they raised their payroll by $90 million at the same time, sure. Nobody who thinks the Cubs can have a chance to contend in 2012 is advocating signing Pujols and then standing firm. We can add other pieces that teams with less payroll couldn't to get improvements.

I'd rather not give up even moderate minor league pieces for the tiny chance that he develops power, though. In 4 full seasons in the majors, he's posted SLG% of .434, .399, .395, and .416. His first two seasons, both partial seasons (48 and 96 games), he posted SLG% of .559 and .538. As he's played more, his power has dropped. It seems unlikely that he'd gain power outside Dodger Stadium as well, since his minor league slugging (.430) mirrors his major league slugging (.432). I'd rather bring back Pena or, as SSR said, keep the prospects and give LaHair a shot than trade for Loney.

This would make me happy, regardless of how much money the Marlins might pay of Zs contract (my guess is none).

or will they team up in some sort of neo-industrial fantasy land where they eat mushrooms, smash bricks with their heads, and kick turtles into their enemies? I'm 100% behind Mike Maddux as manager if he agrees to wear a racoon suit during a game.

MLBTR:

I only did because WSR brought him up previously and I was intrigued. Then I saw the previous numbers and this year's peripherals and lost all intrigue.

Melky's been worse in the majors (.729 OPS) than he was in the minors (.765 OPS). Mainly I used Melky's minor league numbers because Colvin doesn't really have much of a major league track record. If you look at each player's major league track record, though, you'll see Melky with a 7.4% BB% and Colvin with a 7.2%, Melky with a career .056 IsoD and Colvin with a career .059 IsoD. Colvin's K% has been abysmal at the ML level and his power has probably been propped up by a lot of luck in 2010 on home runs. However, if I'm considering two players with no track record of success in the majors or minors, I'm going to prefer the one who is one year younger and won't be a free agent until 2016 as opposed to the one who's going to be 28 and will be a free agent in 2013.

Hopefully the Cardinals will take the same anti-Cub approach. I don't think we've heard such blatant stupidity since Dusty. It's pretty amazing. It's almost like they're intentionally trying to be anti-saber whether it makes any sense or not.

Largely fueled by luck, it appears. His BABIP was high, his HR/FB ratio was high, his BB% was at a career low, and his K% was at a career high (or close). The peripherals suggest a complete inability to sustain his 2011 numbers.

Nor does Melky. Colvin is at least younger and cheaper for a longer period. Neither is particularly likely to have value going forward, so take the guy who's been slightly better in the minors, is a little younger, and is cheaper. I'd have done neither deal if I were the Giants, though.

Off the top of my head, this one of few moves Dayton Moore has made that I've liked. He's built a great minor league system, but his major league moves have been pretty questionable at best. This was a clear and substantial win for him, I think.

Re-sign Wood.

This is what I immediately thought when I heard the news of this trade. Byrd was my first thought as well, but then I started thinking about Colvin. Colvin actually had a better minor league OPS than Melky and is a couple years younger. I'd like to have seen the Cubs get in on that and I think it would've been a better deal by the Giants. Colvin probably doesn't have the perceived value Melky does, though.

I disagree, I actually think it was an awful trade by the Giants. Sanchez likely didn't have much value, but he still has some upside and if he can get his control together he could be pretty useful. I have no problem shopping him around and trying to deal him, but if Melky was the best they could do, I'd have kept him. Melky had a bit of a breakout year last year, but prior to that had amassed 3.5 WAR in 6 MLB seasons (5 full). His highest slugging was .416 and his highest OBP was .336. Defensively, he's posted UZR/150s (career) of .5 in LF, -7.3 in CF, and 1.5 in RF. He did break out a bit this year, but that only amounted to an .809 OPS with a still poor .339 OBP. During this breakout year, his BABIP was 40 points higher than his career average and his HR/FB ratio was the second highest of his career (9.8%). It could be a breakout year as he enters his prime, or it could be a normal season fueled by luck. It appears to me to be the latter and, if so, the Giants just gave up a lefty with some potential left for a hitter who's been bad in the minors and majors and then was overhyped by the Yankees.

Welcome to the forum! As for your point, that's why it wouldn't surprise me if they pursue and sign Wilson. The hefty, long term contracts to old players may give them pause, however.

I've not said it won't be worth a lot nor have I said it's irrelevant. What I've said is that we should have the payroll room and young, cheap talent coming up through the system at that point to absorb the cost. $30 million is a lot of money, but it shouldn't be crippling if the new front office builds this franchise properly. Two problems with this: 1) The Cubs shouldn't act like a mid market team for multiple years. Signing nothing but filler and reclamation projects does nothing but guarantee we won't contend for 2-5 years and waste money. 2) Players as good as Pujols don't come around all the time. Adam Dunn (31, 2.7 avg WAR) was the best available in 2010, Jason Bay (32, 2.7 avg WAR) was the best available in 2009, Mark Teixeira (29, 4.4 avg WAR) was the best available in 2008. Only one of those free agents can be compared in any way to Pujols (Teix) and Pujols will have to really regress in a couple years to hit that average WAR. When you have an elite player on the market, you have the need for him, and the money to afford him, you should pursue him. It'd get a ton better if we added Pujols. And we don't need to have a World Series favorite in order for it to make sense to sign Pujols or Prince. Ideally you want to be better, but all we need to do is make the playoffs to have a shot at the World Series. Without Pujols we have no shot whatsoever at that, with him we might. A slightly better than .500 record might win the division next year and we've already seen the Cardinals with Pujols, a couple really good players, and gritty filler win the World Series. The Cubs with Pujols/Garza/Castro and a few improvements could be similar to that Cardinals team. It certainly could if we're able to get both Pujols and Wilson. Throwing away multiple years because the situation isn't ideal to try to improve isn't productive.

The country is in some real trouble if the economy doesn't improve in the next 8 years. That said, there are other avenues through which to increase revenue other than to raise ticket prices. They're not going to cover a $55 million in payroll increases, but it's not going to happen all at once either. I'll be shocked if we're still sitting at $130 million or less 8 years from now.