dew1679666265

Chase Headley: career .735 OPS/.327 wOBA/1.9 avg WAR/7.8 UZR/150 at 3B/27 years old Martin Prado: career .775 OPS/.337 wOBA/1.7 avg WAR/2.7 UZR/150 at 3B/29 years old Prado has the advantage in OPS and somewhat in wOBA, but Headley has the defensive and WAR advantage and is younger. And Headley was a much better player in the minors than Prado. Headley will also be cheaper longer than Prado as Headley won't hit FA until 2015, while Prado will be a free agent in 2014. There is no guarantee Headley will be available, but I'd almost definitely prefer him to Prado at the same price.

I posted a FanGraphs article in the Jurrjens/Prado thread about Jurrjens and concerns about him. I'm just not that big a fan. He's a really nice pitcher and young, but doesn't strike very many people out and his velocity has been consistently dropping for a few years now. I just don't see him as a guy who's certain to have sustained success and there's too much risk that he's not the premium talent we'd be paying for. I mentioned in the other thread as well that I'd prefer Headley to Prado since Headley is younger and profiles to more power than Prado - Prado had a .390 SLG in the minors, while Headley was at .500.

If the Cubs are struggling to have two high priced, non-home grown players on their roster in 2018, then either Theo/Hoyer/McLeod have done a really poor job on the farm system and/or Ricketts has reigned in spending to a huge degree. This is a team with a very big payroll, the means by which to expand it, and the owner willing to pour money into the product on the field. If the three-headed monster heading up the Cubs builds the type of farm system we all expect them to, then we'll have a steady stream of cheap, productive players hitting Chicago each year. If that's the case, and payroll keeps rising as it should, then the Cubs shouldn't be hard pressed to sign a major impact player if they feel one is worth the cost. The Phillies have two players making $20 million, one making $15 million, and one making $10 million and still were able to find the budget room to fit in Cliff Lee at $24 million AAV. That's $65 million tied up in 4 players (without counting Lee) and two of those players are Ryan Howard making $20 million per and Joe Blanton making $10 million per. Overpaying one player isn't going to cripple this franchise if it's built well, and there's no reason to believe Theo and co won't build it well. I understand that point, but it's an idealistic scenario that isn't likely to happen. There's never a perfect scenario to overpay for a player. There's always some reason why you shouldn't sign a guy. If you have the means to pay a player without crippling yourself, you have a major need at a position, and you have two elite players on the free agent market, you're not going to find a more perfect scenario.

I have some concerns about Jurrjens going forward, primarily based off of his low K/9 numbers. Here's a good article from FanGraphs noting something else concerning about Jurrjens, however. His conclusion is that Jurrjens isn't worth a top prospect and I agree. I can't say I'd be comfortable giving any of Vitters, McNutt, Szczur, or Cashner for him. On Prado, I'd have more interest in him, but I'm really not sure how to value him. His 2011 wasn't good at all, but he's had wOBAs of .355, .357, and .367 the past three seasons before 2011. His only good defensive position is 3B and he's 29. I'd prefer to shoot for Headley than Prado, but if the Braves are looking to sell low on Prado (which they don't appear to be) then I'd have more interest.

I'd put strong odds on that too. Things keep looking better for the Cubs if he truly becomes a FA though.

No idea exactly where this should go, so I'll put it here. This post on MLBTR is pretty much nothing but good news should we decide to pursue Wilson. The Nats are showing interest in Oswalt, and from Rizzo's quote it looks like they're looking for a little more of a track record from the starter they obtain. The Marlins may also be a bit sour on Wilson. Nothing definite from either, but that's two suitors possibly looking elsewhere, including one many on here think may be strong players for him.

Votto's basically it. He'll be a free agent in the 2013 offseason and will turn 31 during the 2014 season (the first year we'd have him).

You don't think we'll be competitive for 6-7 years? That's when Pujols will be 37-38. There's no reason why the Cubs can't be a favorite for a playoff spot as soon as 2013 and they might have an outside chance at one next year. That's if we have an elite talent at first base. And if you look at Fielder, we'd have him through his age 34 season if he signed an 8 year deal. If you sit around waiting for the absolute perfect time for all of your young talent to be in the majors and about ready to peak and for there to be elite talent on the free agent market at the exact position you have a need, you're probably never going to sign any elite free agent. That scenario can't be planned and elite free agent players don't come around every offseason. To me, it's perfectly logical to jump at the opportunity for a big market team capable of turning things around in a year or two (and has done it twice in about 8 years) and with no MLB talent at first base above rookie league (or wherever Vogelbach is) to sign an elite talent that should have at minimum 3-4 years of prime left.

Probably Wilson as I see him as a bit better, but I'd have no problem with either. It's not a useful question, though, because you don't give out elite starter money just because you think a guy is going to pitch great in one game in a hypothetical playoff game. You give out elite starter money because you believe a guy can pitch at an extremely high level over the course of an entire 162 game season and Wilson has done that twice. He's not had any problems through two seasons. A 5.2 average WAR his only two years starting and showing improvements in K/9, BB/9 and K/BB from year one to year two. That's not a pitcher who I'm afraid is going to break down shortly, especially since he's only logged around 700 ML innings on his arm to this point. He's going to cost a ton, but if he can keep up his 5.2 WAR average going forward, he'll be well worth the cost. My guess is probably in the 5/85-95 range, which would be an AAV of around $17-19 million. Teams pursuing Wilson will be aided by the presence of Darvish on the market, the rumors that the Red Sox won't be interested, and the possibility that the Yankees chose to go lower tier to find their starter (Buehrle? Oswalt? Jackson?) since they just gave CC a hefty raise.

First off, Pujols is a better player than ARod was at the same age and ARod produced a 5.7 WAR average through the 5 years since his age 32 season. If I knew Pujols was going to give us a 6+ WAR on average in his first 5 years, I'd take the chance that we could get 2-3 WAR average in the second half of the deal. Second, it's not just Pujols we could go after. Fielder isn't likely to age well, but that also doesn't mean he's likely to fall off a cliff when he hits his early 30s. He'll be 28 next year and if signed to an 8 year contract, it's perfectly realistic (and maybe likely) he gives us elite performance for 6 of those years. All that said, the age concerns and this year's dropoff are legitimate concerns and if Keri had stuck to that, I wouldn't have said anything. However, to say the Cubs aren't likely to compete next year and giving that as a reason to pass on both Pujols and Fielder is to ignore how very unlikely it is that either player makes a huge decline after year one of the deal. To conclude that the Cubs shouldn't sign them because of competitiveness reasons means you either think it's likely that they fall apart in the next year or two or it's because you don't think the Cubs can compete for about 3-5 years. Neither of those are good assumptions. The matchup of need and player doesn't come around all that often - much less than premium talent comes around. The Cubs have nothing in the minors at first, nothing in the majors at first, there appear to be no impact first basemen available in trades, and the Cubs have the payroll to absorb an underproducing player later in his contract. Everything lines up absolutely perfectly for either Pujols or Fielder and it probably won't again any time soon. We passed on Dunn last year (and I supported that call) with an eye toward this year's free agents. If we pass on impact bats at first this year, what do we do at first going forward? Unless Theo/Hoyer can pull a stud first baseman out of their hat, the next possibility is Joey Votto either 2 years from now or at the cost of practically every good minor leaguer we have. There's really no better usage of funds than elite talent at a position of major need. It is a very big decision and I'm glad it's Theo and Hoyer making the call instead of just about anybody else. And I love the Jebodore name, that's good stuff.

That's kind of like the argument not to sign Pujols/Fielder because we won't be favorites to win the World Series next season. Both of those players will be on the team for the next 8-10 years, so next year isn't the only year that matters. It's the same for Wilson - the infield defense won't be where it needs to be next year, but we'd probably sign Wilson to a 4-5 year deal and probably sooner than later in that deal the IF defense will be much improved.

I simply don't get this idea that if the Cubs sign one of Pujols/Fielder, they'll apparently only sign them to a one year deal or something. If you sign a player to an 8-10 year contract, that player will produce for you for 8-10 years (to different degrees, obviously). You don't have to be ready to win in year one of signing an elite superstar to a long term deal. I like this idea that premium talent is just kind of always out there, ready to be picked like apples off a tree. Makes you wonder how some teams have such trouble finding premium talent if it's so plentiful that you can so flippantly pass on one of the greatest players to ever step on the diamond.

He's not topped 225 innings yet, but he pitched 223 last year and in the 175-223 range he posted monthly ERAs of 2.87 and 1.21 and a K:BB ratio of 69:21. In 2010, he struggled a bit in his 175-250 range: 5.85 ERA and 30:16 K:BB. For comparison, Halladay posted ERAs of 2.62 and 1.70 with a K:BB ratio of 68:16 in the same range. Sabathia had ERAs of 4.68 and 3.08 with a K:BB ratio of 74:16. Verlander was at 3.12 and 2.55 and a K:BB ratio of 72:21. All have better K:BB ratios in that period, but Wilson's ERA (not a good measure, but nothing is when you look at a 60 inning range) is comparable to them all and better than some. My focus on determining an "ace" of a staff is how well the pitcher does over the course of the season, not just in a select 60-inning range. Wilson was the 9th best pitcher according to WAR and has less mileage on his arm than almost anybody around him on that list. He's always been a good pitcher even as a reliever, but it's become pretty clear he's an elite arm as a starter. Then you're selling him pretty short. Where would you have him on your list of best pitchers?

If he can throw strikes down in the Dominican, I'd be interested. Yeah, that'd be what I'd want to hear. He's always had really good stuff and the ability to strike a lot of people out. Some of those 6 and 7 BB/9 seasons are ridiculous, though.

Any interest here from the Cubs, I wonder? Could be an intriguing minor league deal option.

I'm convinced Jamie Moyer will never retire .....

I've been pronouncing it "Muh CAN in" I've been pronouncing it MACK uh nin. However, the impeccable Wikipedia says it should be ma KAN in.

Works for me. Now let's go get CJ Wilson ... or a W-Y Chen/Francis duo.

Come on Theo/Hoyer, get this done.

I might take him on that as well, but a lot of my lack of interest in him comes from the belief I have that he'll get at least two and probably 3 years on the market. And the money will almost certainly be $10+ million, maybe closer to $15 million. Somebody - or maybe even a few teams - will overlook the age and injury risk and pay for his past production. I don't want the Cubs to be that team. If we're going to go with an old, likely to decline veteran, let's go with Buerhle. Ideally we avoid both, though.

The problem is that, as with any physical ailment, as he gets older his back issues are increasingly more likely to become a problem - and perhaps a major one at that. Couple that with how many innings he's thrown over the course of his career, and he's a major risk of decline and/or injury. I should have said injury risk instead of injury prone, though.

Not a fan of Oswalt at all. He's old (35 next season) and pretty injury prone. Oswalt really doesn't help us much at all given our current situation.

Ideally we pursue and get CJ Wilson or Yu Darvish this offseason. Wilson is an elite pitcher and Darvish has the potential to be (but also carries great risk). We only need one of those two and we have the payroll room to afford either. If we miss on them, however, there are intriguing potential mid-rotation options such as Wei-Yin Chen and Jeff Francis who would be cheap and would represent a large improvement over the mess our 5th starter spot was last year - it would also allow Cashner to be rotation depth instead of counting on him. Probably, but the Cubs will either not have a great need for him if we can sign Pujols and Wilson or we'll be able to pay him a relatively sizeable amount of money if we miss on one of those two. Availability is a concern, no doubt, as is the prospect price we may have to pay to get either. However, both are players with considerable upside and due to Aramis' awful defense and baserunning, Headley would be nearly as valuable as Aramis was last year and perhaps moreso going forward. Where did I argue that LaHair is better than Pena? I wouldn't argue that in any way and, in fact, if we have LaHair starting at first next season, we're nearly a shoe-in to be terrible. My first choice at first would be Pujols, then Fielder, then Pena. We could compete in 2012 with any of those guys if we make the correct corresponding moves. As for getting better production than Aramis, it won't happen. However, we can get pretty close with either a combo of Baker (.900+ OPS v lefties) and someone like Flaherty or Kouzmanoff, or with a trade for Headley (Aramis 2011 WAR: 3.6; Headley 2011 WAR: 2.7). We can trade for Headley and still have the money to pursue both Pujols and Wilson, and even Wei-Yin Chen as well. Jackson is an unknown, but is a quality prospect and a guy who should, if nothing else, provide defensive value even if his offense struggles. And I don't know what you're classifying as a "serious move", but we can trade for Headley, outbid other teams for Sizemore, and pick up either Pujols or Prince and have no holes at any of those three positions in 2013. And all three moves are realistic and affordable under our current $130 million payroll. It won't be an easy offseason to bring in the guys we need, but we certainly have the means by which to get the job done.

Francis would probably be the best we could hope for from Coleman or Rusin in 2012. If Francis can get back to his 2007 form (4.1 WAR), he could be a terrific deal. That year he posted a 4.13 xFIP and a career best 6.90 K/9. It was also his second best K/BB in his career (2.63). He'd likely come extremely cheap and on a one-year deal, at worst giving us decent depth and at best giving us Mark Buerhle production without the multi-year commitment and $12+ million AAV.

I think you're overrating his potential cost a bit. I've explained why the Yankees may target someone with a bit less commitment and teams like the Jays or Nats simply looking for a splash may be more intrigued by Darvish than Wilson. Anybody we sign next year is going to cost easily what Wilson will or more and probably won't have the poor postseason potentially keeping teams a bit cooler on them.