dew1679666265

You start high and you work your way down, by asking for a Low A ball player with no ceiling in return, you're making the Cubs fan base do handstands, and probably leaving something on the table. I have to negotiate contracts every day...it can be annoying as hell but people understand parameters before speaking and then you work your way to a middle ground in which both parties can agree to. I agree, but in this case McNutt or B. Jackson is starting high. Starting at Garza is stupid. Jackson is high, McNutt is a pitcher who was drafted after the 30th or so round, came out of nowhere and regressed. I think again this type of player is fair compensation. If Hendry had the opportunity to include him over Archer for Garza then well...that's why he isn't the GM anymore. Plus I've met Hendry before...not a fan...although JP Riccardi is the biggest ahole I've met in the industry. you are literally the first person i have ever heard of who has met hendry and didnt say he was incredibly nice That was the first thought I had when I read his post. I've never heard anything negative about Hendry's personality before that post.

This is one of the funniest things I've read on here. Ever. Good job.

Ok, we're making progress I think. We're both agreeing that he doesn't have much patience, so what skills does he have that are not largely speed related? I'm not sure what your point is here. I've never refuted that he's been a great player in his mid-late 20s. I'm refuting that he'll continue to be a great player and not see a considerable decrease into his mid 30s. You (strongly) implied that the .495 SLG he posted in 2010 was a sign that he was bulking up and increasing his power. I responded that given his severe dropoff this year and the up-and-down nature of his power throughout his career, that this was more of a blip than a sign of a trend. I'm not sure how your response ties into that conversation. I've never heard that players who rely largely on speed and have mostly speed related skills add power successfully late in their career. As for the link you posted, Crawford could improve his walk rate until he's 33, but it's gotten worse each of the past three years - from 7.6 in 2009 to 6.9 in 2010 to 4.3 in 2011 - and if his BA begins to decline (or continue, depending on what 2011 meant) then the walk rate going up will only hold the OBP steady at a mediocre rate until his mid 30s. If a number of other skills begin to erode over that same period of time, that OBP gets harder and harder to overlook.

He also had a .482 SLG in 2006 when he was 24. He followed that up by declining to .466 and then to .400 before shooting back up to .452 and then .495. He followed that .495 up by slugging .405 last year. The .495 looks more like an impressive blip than the beginning of a consistent trend at this point. I'd be interested to see James or Tango arguing that guys with moderate plate discipline and who rely heavily on speed become more powerful as they age. I've not heard that before and can't really think of any players who fit that mold and did that with any success.

Being skilled and being fundamentally sound with good technique are two completely different things. Being selective and patient at the plate is a sign of a player who is fundamentally sound enough to adjust when his natural ability falters later in his career. That's why it's so important. I understand this and have stated that those are quality skills he possesses at this point in his career. However, as I've said numerous times, those are not skills that are likely to continue to be strong as his speed fades. They are natural ability/speed reliant stats and are more likely than not to go away when the speed goes away. The point to those comparisons is that you don't succeed late in your career based purely on physical ability or Pierre and Soriano would have been much better players toward the end of their careers. Players whose production is largely tied into their speed and athleticism (as SBs and BABIP-driven BA largely are and defense sometimes is) tend to decline rapidly as they age. Players who have skills not tied into speed and athleticism (patience and sometimes defense) tend to age more gracefully as they have something to fall back on when the speed and athleticism goes. You keep arguing that Crawford will succeed later in his career because he's a physical specimen with great speed and athleticism. The likelihood of those holding up into his mid 30s is low because people get slower and less athletic as they get older. It's not the only factor, but it's a pretty major one. I've said multiple times that Crawford could age well, but that the odds are against him because he's so reliant on speed and athleticism and he isn't selective at the plate. His chances of staying good are higher than Soriano's or Pierre's or Rollins' because he's a better player than them, but he has the same lack of patience that was those 3 players' downfall and that makes him a worse gamble than guys who consistently will give you a high OBP and IsoD. The former, but nobody we've talked about has consistently put up a .350 OBP so I'm not sure what the point is. You don't evaluate a player just by looking at his best seasons and ignoring or explaining away his bad seasons when there's a good sample size to go on. Over the past 5 years, Crawford's OBP is .339 - very similar to his career .333 OBP. Maybe he'll have a patience breakthrough in his post-30 years and post .360+ OBP seasons consistently, but at this point he probably is what he is when it comes to patience and that is a .330-.340 OBP guy. And if he stays that way, I'll continue to be skeptical of his chances to be highly productive as he enters his mid 30s.

I just pointed out that Pierre had more .350+ OBP seasons in his first 10 years than Crawford did - 4-3. I also have pointed out that Pierre has a better career OBP than Crawford does - and that includes the early years of both players and Pierre's twilight years. I've also said Crawford is the better player, but neither player has particularly good patience and both rely on their natural athleticism to succeed. Injury makes you less patient? I could see dips in slugging or defense being due to injury, but if you're a patient player you should be able to remain patient all the time. The fact is, his OBP is reliant on BA to remain high, much like with Pierre. If he starts to have injury issues or his speed declines as he ages (likely), that average will begin to dip and with it the patience. Without the speed to supplement the low OBP, he'll become a liability due to a huge contract - much like Soriano and Rollins have become. And that period "when he's on" will likely become less and less as he gets older and his speed and natural athleticism dips, since he doesn't have a consistent skill (like patience) to fall back on. Who are these speed-reliant players with moderate patience who have lost their speed and developed dramatic power increases late in their careers?

Let me go at this from a different direction and see if that helps: In football, who tends to age better - a deep threat receiver whose primary strength is to go downfield and he relies very little on technique, or a smart receiver who runs good routes and excels in beating defenders by using solid technique? In boxing, who tends to age better - a powerhouse athlete relies on his ability to take a huge amount of hits and deliver his own based on his natural athleticism, or a boxer who relies on solid footwork, evades punches well, and is a technically sound boxer? In tennis, who tends to age better - someone who relies on a powerful swing and natural ability who doesn't show good technique, or someone whose technique is sound and derives their success from their ability to have good form, good footwork, and solid technique? In every case, the athlete more likely to age better and have success late in their careers are the players who show good technique and don't rely purely on natural ability/speed/athleticism to succeed. This isn't some brand new idea that nobody has ever heard of before - as a person ages, their natural ability and athleticism fades. Athletes get slower as they get older, some more than others but all of them do. The one thing that remains constant for a player is their technique, having something to fall back on when natural ability and athleticism fades. In baseball at the plate, the best thing to have as you age is patience. The ability to work the count, get pitchers behind in the count, and draw walks is critical for a player to succeed late in their career as their natural ability begins to fade. I have no doubt that Crawford is a terrific athlete who is exceptionally fast and has had a lot of success relying on these physical tools to succeed. However, so was Soriano at one point, so was Pierre, so was Jimmy Rollins, so were a lot of other players who relied heavily on speed for their value in their younger ages. All three of those players I mentioned faltered in their 30s (especially mid 30s) due to not having good patience at the plate to fall back on when their speed and natural ability declined with age. Crawford may be the exception to that rule as he gets older, as I'm sure there have been a few other exceptions. But I'm not willing to gamble big money that a terrific athlete with moderate patience will age well, because it happens so rarely.

I'm not familiar with Crawford's arm. Right now, I'm expecting that most of his defensive value is derived from his range and athleticism. If his arm isn't well above average, his defensive value will drop considerably if his speed goes as he ages. Soriano has never gotten good reads, but he had good to very good range and athleticism in his prime which covered for getting bad reads and he also has a cannon arm. His ability to get to the ball after a bad read has fallen dramatically as he's aged (like I think will happen with Crawford), but Soriano still provides defensive value by having that cannon arm. Crawford will almost certainly always be better defensively, but I'm not sure how much. I'm assuming his ability to read the ball is better than Soriano, but I have no idea on his arm strength.

Let me re-state first, as I said multiple times in my previous post, Crawford is the superior player to Pierre, I am not debating that point. However, the two players have similar skillsets in that they're relatively impatient players who rely largely on speed for their value. Crawford does have more power - which is largely what makes him better, along with being much more efficient in SBs as you noted. Now, with that said, here's more reasoning why I see them as similar. Pierre posted a .350 OBP or better in 4 of his first 5 major league seasons. And 3 of those were better than the peak OBP Crawford has ever posted in any season. They all also came with similar or better IsoD's than Crawford posted in his .350+ seasons as well. As for Crawford being more patient recently, that's true to a point. However, he's also posted his worst and 4th worst OBPs during that stretch as well, the worst of his career (by one point) was this past season. I've not figured his OBP in the previous 5 seasons, but I'd wager the two bad seasons pull his average down near that .333 career mark. He's really not gotten that much more patient overall, he's just having higher peaks and lower valleys. Now, what is the varied offensive skill set he possesses? He has speed, some power, moderate patience, and really good defense. As the speed goes, he looks like Soriano with less power and a little more patience. That's a large reason why I said multiple times in my previous post that you responded to that Crawford is the superior player. It doesn't mean they don't have similar skillsets, though. Patience isn't the only thing you need to have, but if you're not patient at the plate then the likelihood is that when the natural abilities fade with age (which they generally do), you don't have anything to fall back on. Soriano was a terrific athlete in his prime who slugged great, could steal bases well (78% career), and had some really good defensive seasons. However, those natural abilities have faded away and he doesn't have anything to fall back on because he was never a patient player. Same with Pierre. Same, likely, with Crawford as he gets into his mid 30s. And again, let me repeat, Crawford is better than Pierre. I've never argued otherwise. But they share similar skillsets. Other legit comparisons include that neither is particularly patient at the plate and both have relied heavily on speed for their production over the course of their careers. Again, though, Crawford is better. A huge negative for a guy like Crawford is that he's not patient at the plate. All throughout history guys have excelled in their mid-late 30s, true. What's generally the connection between all of them? They're pretty much all patient and selective at the plate. I'm sure there are some like Crawford who have done well into their mid-late 30s relying largely on speed, but they're more the exception than the rule. As for falling off a cliff past 30, I never said that. I even said that I'd love to have Crawford at a little less money through about his age 34-35 seasons. However, it's around that age 34-35 season that I'm concerned he'll really decline heavily and I want no part of him from about 34 on. My expectation is that his early 30s will be good to really good seasons and then the mid 30s will be similar to what we've seen from Soriano recently. And one more time for good measure - I'm not arguing now, I did not argue in my previous post, nor will I likely ever argue that Carl Crawford is better than Juan Pierre. In fact, I stated in my previous post that Crawford is the superior player to Pierre. However, Crawford can be better but still share a similar skillset (moderate patience with a heavy reliance on speed) to Pierre. Soriano also shares that similar skillset, but is also a better player than Pierre.

I would look into him if, and only if, we can still get Pujols/Fielder as well. I'm concerned that we couldn't afford Pujols or Fielder at $25-30 per and CC at $24+ per. Wilson at $15-20 per is far more realistic than CC, I think. Also the fact that he's a pitcher who has a ton of wear scares me too, but I've been expecting him to break for 2-3 years now, so maybe he is that one exception. Or maybe he's just been incredibly lucky.

He'll turn 28 May of next year. My guess is he gets 6-8 years and probably more like 8 years - the possibility of less would be with the idea that he gets out of this contract in his mid-30s and might get one more big deal then. His ultimate deal will be reliant on what Pujols gets, I think, but will probably ultimately fall in the 8/$200 ($25 per) area. Fielder is more likely to turn into an albatross than Pujols is due to Fielder's weight. However, both are very patient hitters and that makes both less likely to become Soriano-esque in their later years. In both cases as well, you're going to get so otherworldly great production from them that it might be worth knowing you'll get 2-3 years of them being well overpaid so that you can get the awesomeness you won't find anywhere else. If we're producing minor league starters like we should be with Epstein at the helm and still have a roughly $130 mil or so payroll, a couple or three years of an underproducing Fielder or Pujols shouldn't be that big an issue. We'd still have $100+ to spend on the rest of the roster. The problem now is that we don't have much cheap production anywhere and we have to pay for so much of our production.

Because he's so reliant on speed and isn't a highly patient player - his IsoD (.040) is lower than Pierre's (.049). We'd have him through his age 37 season and there's a good chance his speed goes out sometime in his mid-30s. If that happens, he doesn't have much to fall back on. Let me emphasize, however, that he's a really good player right now and I'd love to have him for something like 4-5 yrs/$60-75 million ($15 per). However, I wouldn't want to be paying him $20+ million during his age 34-37 years because I don't think he'll be close to worth it. And unlike a guy like Pujols, his earlier years won't be so over the top great that I can live with the inevitable fall (plus I don't think Pujols will ever get as bad as I think Crawford can become).

In his 10 year career, he's had 3 OBPs at .350 or higher and as I noted earlier in this thread, his career OBP is 10 points higher than Soriano's career OBP. Also interesting to note, Crawford's career .333 OBP is also 12 points worse than Pierre's .345 career OBP. Both Crawford and Pierre also have 5 career .300+ BA seasons and Pierre's career BA (.296) is slightly higher than Crawford's (.293). Crawford has 10 more career doubles in two fewer seasons, though. That's not to say Pierre is as good as Crawford, he isn't. Crawford is the superior player without a doubt, but he's not this ultra-patient doubles machine either. He's very reliant on his speed to make things happen and as that deteriorates, he doesn't have much to fall back on.

I'd rather they go a little more OBP focused and less speed focused than Crawford. Having a couple guys like him would be good, but much like Juan Pierre, guys with speed get overpaid considerably. The bolded is the biggest reason I'm against the trade in this thread and against going after Crawford in general. I'm not confident he's all that less likely to fall apart than Soriano and I don't think the 2-3 really good years we'd be likely to get from him are worth the 2-3 awful years we'd be likely to get.

Speed isn't what would have put the Cubs over the top the past few years, talent is. And even if speed would help us, Crawford is 30 and that speed may start diminishing here pretty soon. At that point, he's a slightly more patient and much less powerful Soriano with (possibly) better defense.

Clearly it would, which is a reason why the Red Sox would be less inclined to take him. However, since the Cubs will be staying in the NL, Z becomes as valuable or moreso than Lackey - especially since neither is likely to be a strong contributor going forward and we'll have Z for a shorter span.

Is Crawford that significantly more multi-dimensional? His career OBP (.333) is only 10 points higher than Soriano's (.323) and Soriano has a far better career SLG (.506) than Crawford (.441). Crawford's career average WAR is 3.7, while Soriano's is 2.7. Soriano has the better career wOBA (.355) than Crawford (.343) as well. Defensively, for whatever stock you put in UZR/150, Soriano is a career 12.5 UZR/150 leftfielder, while Crawford is a career 13.4 UZR/150 leftfielder. There's no question Crawford is the far superior player to Soriano right now, but I'm not seeing Crawford as being a significantly less risky player to decline heavily as he turns 33-37.

Soriano vs Crawford, yes. Lackey vs Z, I don't know. Past 3 seasons WAR: Z 2009: 3.6 pitching + 1.0 hitting = 4.6 2010: 2.3 pitching + .5 hitting = 2.8 2011: .9 pitching + 1.0 hitting = 1.9 Lackey 2009: 3.8 pitching + 0.0 hitting = 3.8 2010: 4.1 pitching + .2 hitting = 4.3 2011: 1.5 pitching + .1 hitting = 1.6 Z is also 2 years younger.

Crawford's contract gets better if the Red Sox send some money over, but purely on each contract as it is now I don't think Crawford's is that much better than Soriano's. Crawford has more value than Soriano right this minute yes, but he's already 30 and is signed for the next six years at more money each year (I think) than any one of Soriano's. I could see the argument that it's better to push back the awful years that are inevitable for both players, but the risk is that there will be more (both in terms of cost and length) for Crawford.

I'd much rather have Soriano/Z than Lackey/Crawford. Z's contract runs out after next year and Soriano's runs out after 2014. Lackey's runs out after 2014 and Crawford's runs out after 2017. Basically we're adding years to Z's contract (through 2014) and signing the Soriano deal all over again, only for a few million less for a few years. I don't know that the Red Sox would do it either, but I certainly wouldn't do it if I were the Cubs.

Don't forget Ricketts! Yeah I almost put him there, but I wouldn't call him a baseball mind (at least not yet) as he readily admits that he has a lot to learn about baseball, but understands the philosophies that have made teams successful in this era of baseball and is smart enough to hire the right people to make it happen. Yea, I was partially joking there but Ricketts has certainly shown to be very progressive to this point.

Don't forget Ricketts!

They don't have Theo anymore. I'd be surprised if anyone left in that front office knew what OBP was much less WAR. They still have Cherington and Bill James don't forget (unless Theo is able to bring James with him). Isn't Bill James just an independant consultant? Not sure. I saw his title as senior consultant or some such like that on the Red Sox site, but that may not mean he's an actual employee.

They don't have Theo anymore. I'd be surprised if anyone left in that front office knew what OBP was much less WAR. They still have Cherington and Bill James don't forget (unless Theo is able to bring James with him).

Bat speed is kind of a scouting thing so it wouldn't surprise me if the previous Cubs management did look into the size of his bat decreasing his bat speed. That said, Epstein may look into it as well and come to a different (and perhaps more accurate) conclusion.