dew1679666265

I'm not mojo, but I don't think it'd be a good idea to try LaHair in the OF this year whichever side of the debate you fall on. If you aren't able to get an acceptable deal at the deadline, I think you keep him at first the remainder of this year and keep Rizzo in AAA all year (until September callups). After the season, you work hard with LaHair and get him reps in the OF and monitor his progress that way. At that point you make a determination on whether you feel he's an OF or not. Trying him for 10-20 games after he's barely played OF in the minors and been a first baseman almost exclusively for a while now isn't going to give you the kind of sample size that will tell you conclusively either way.

I'd be willing to go pretty high, I think. The traditional numbers are a little down for him so that might help and the teams that value his skill set aren't generally the more high-payroll organizations. I don't think the bidding will go too high, I'm just hoping the Yankees/Red Sox focus on Hamels/Greinke and we turn our attention to guys like Upton and maybe Drew.

That's a good point, and I'm not good enough at projecting stats to argue the point (if it can be argued). Even if he drops below a .900 OPS, or especially into the low .800s, then you have a career minor leaguer who started off super hot and then probably put up a sub-.800 OPS for a large portion of the year who plays below average defense. I trust the scouting eye of the Theo regime more than I did the Hendry regime (though Hendry was a good scout in his own right). If given the choice, I'd rather take a shot on a couple of minor leaguers the Theo regime likes who are 18-21 than a near-30 year old career minor leaguer who got off to a really hot start and has nice peripherals and would be playing out of position. Also, I'd think the Soriano era would encourage more people to value defense, not just happily accept more awful defense with a less-than-stellar bat. And Soriano hasn't even been that awful during his Cub tenure.

Not at all. He's been worth 4+ fWAR for 4 of the past 5 seasons and his high point was 5 WAR in 2008. His offensive numbers aren't great (.258/.343/.417) but his defense is really good and he steals bases at an efficient clip (76% career success rate). On top of that, he'll be 28 most of the year next year, so we'd have him through a good portion of his prime years. He's really good.

I'd much rather wait until the offseason and go for Upton rather than give up prospects for Snider.

I don't think there's too much hating on LaHair in this thread. Just people being realistic.

What if we hold out for a top 5 prospect and another top 10-15, don't get the offer, keep him, and then he finishes the year with a sub-.800 OPS? Then we have an average bat and a below average glove on our hands - not a very valuable commodity on the market. While it's nice to think about your scenario, the sub-.800 OPS scenario is more likely. I'm not in favor of giving him up for scraps, but if we can get two of another team's top 15 prospects, I do that trade without thinking twice. This is a guy who had 0 value prior to the season.

I think there should be an element of both there, though. Especially when you're in a rebuilding phase like we are, you shouldn't block a key building block of the future for a 29 year old rookie. But at the same time, LaHair's production, approach, and peripherals shouldn't be ignored. If the only thought was to not block Rizzo, then you'd simply stick LaHair on the bench and be done with it - that's the easiest, simplest option and is likely where he'll ultimately end up anyway. However, since he's producing the way he is with the encouraging approach and peripherals that he has, there should be some level of effort to find him a place to play. If you can't then you should just accept that you can't and move on, but there still should be some effort to find some room for him as long as the peripherals remain encouraging.

I agree that it's incredibly unlikely that it would actually work, but if he's not dealt at the deadline, then there's really no reason not to try him out there. As unlikely as it is, there's still a non-zero chance that it works and when the other options are to bench him, delay Rizzo, or move Rizzo to another position, the only logical choice is to see if he can do it.

Yeah, the "Player X was/is awful out there so we should try LaHair because he might be very slightly less awful" argument isn't a very good one.

Some of the mocking tones have made me wonder whether people just think it won't work or whether people think it's dumb to even try. I think it's a good idea to try, but I wouldn't put off shopping him around this deadline in order to do it.

My view on this subject is this: We should try to trade LaHair at the deadline, but be very specific about our demands. Don't just dump him for anything, but now would be the perfect time to deal him because his value will never be higher. However, if you don't get what you want, then feel free to keep him. If you do keep him, it really wouldn't hurt anything to work with him in the offseason on playing the OF and see if there's any hope there. I expect not, but having him take reps out there isn't going to hurt anything and there's a non-zero chance that it works. More likely than not we're still going to be be in this rebuilding phase next year so if the experiment carries into the season and he costs us some runs, it's not going to matter. Blocking Rizzo is a bad option and it's not like LaHair is going to retain much, if any, value if he heads to the bench when Rizzo comes up.

Teams will take into consideration that Hamels was the ace on a WS winning team, but they also think that a pitcher who "wins" 14 games is really impressive. If something that doesn't mean a significant amount drops Anibal's price tag a bit, all the better. If price and length of contract is not considered, of course it's no contest. But you have to take those things into consideration and if I can pay a guy $30+ million less for 1-2 years fewer, and know that the production on the field isn't all that dissimilar, I have to look at that. As for Anibal's age - he'll turn 29 in February. Thus, a five year deal would make him 33 in his final season as a Cub. And a 5-year deal isn't something I'm chomping at the bit to give him. I'm willing to, but only under the right circumstances (i.e. the AAV is much lower). Hamels turns 29 in December, so a 6-year deal would mean he'd be signed through his age 34 season and a 7-year deal (very realistic) would mean he was signed through his age 35 season. Add in that Hamels likely gets at the very least $30+ million more than Anibal and that becomes a significant extra investment.

I actually hadn't even thought of it that way. That argument (or phrasing, maybe) makes a lot more sense, but I'm not sure it's a significant factor. It might help Hamels be a little better a little quicker, but over the course of the contract it shouldn't make much of a difference. On Greinke, that's an actual diagnosed disorder, not just amateur psychoanalyzing leading to concern. It's a far more significant issue for Greinke than it would be for Hamels/Anibal/nearly any other ML SP.

I was responding to a point you made about how unbelievable it would be that the Cubs would stop their pursuit of Upton because they had Hamels. I responded that I wouldn't have expected them to stop their pursuit of Cespedes simply because they couldn't get him on the perfect contract, but they did. Which means, I'm not sure what their finances are like and what their ultimate plan is for building this team, so I can't speak to whether signing Hamels would stop them from pursuing Upton. I don't think any of us know that. That has nothing to do with me managing their finances, though. You still seem confused about what I actually said so let me repost it so you can re-read it, and this time I'll try bolding some to help out your understanding. Please point out there where I stated that I felt the Cubs should pay Anibal $100 million. What I said was that the absolute highest dollar amount I could see Anibal signing on the free agent market (regardless of who signs him) was a 5/100 million deal. That's if some crazy bidding war takes place between teams that are desperate for not getting Hamels/Greinke. I also said the absolute lowest I could see Hamels getting was 6/120 and that's if the market is far drier than I expect now. Neither is a prediction, nor a suggestion of what the Cubs should pay either player. Basically, my point in making that statement was to say the smallest amount of money I could possibly see being the difference in total value between Anibal and Hamels' contracts was about $20 million. Meaning I fully expect the difference to be much, much higher than that. 1. I'm not glossing over anything. Sanchez has more risk than Hamels at getting hurt, but both are far greater risks than any hitter for injury/decline simply because they are pitchers. If I'm going to sign a massive risk, I'd rather sign the lesser commitment and that player is Sanchez. If we had a greater need, I might be willing to take on the greater commitment to Hamels, but we don't. 2. Both pitchers are 7-year major league veterans. We know what they're each capable of doing. Pedigree means nothing at this point. Your statistical history is your statistical history. Hamels isn't a better pitcher because he might or might not be a "winner." He certainly isn't a better pitcher because his teams have been better. 3. Once again, no I did not suggest we pay Sanchez $100 million. I said someone might as an example of the absolute highest contract he might receive. I would not be in favor of the Cubs going that high. His very good numbers the past couple of seasons are very relevant to the discussion however, since his fWAR numbers have been very similar to Hamels' the past couple of years. Maybe he's not a far inferior pitcher. Maybe he's just a little worse. 4. sneaky covered this pretty well. His price is far lower than Hamels because he has had injury problems throughout his career. Statistically, he's not that much inferior of a pitcher. Both are a gamble, Anibal moreso, but there's less commitment with Anibal and when signing pitchers, I tend to lean toward lesser commitment. 5. It is very nice that Hamels is a lefty posting very good K rates. However, over the past couple of seasons, Anibal has been right there with Hamels on K rate, only half a K behind him. Anibal isn't some mid-rotation scrub that might get severely overpaid. This is an elite talent who has struggled with injuries. The upside is very much there with Anibal nearly as much as it is with Hamels. I realize the risk is greater with Anibal, but the risk is great with both, and the commitment to Anibal is less. My primary interest in Sanchez is that I have very little interest in giving a pitcher 6-7 years when he'll be 34-35 by the end of the deal, regardless of who that is. Hamels will demand that, Sanchez will not. We would be paying Sanchez until he's 32-33, we would be paying Hamels until he's 34-35 and paying him much, much more money. If Sanchez were a significantly inferior pitcher, I wouldn't make this argument. But he's not. He's worse, but has proven the past couple of years that he's not much worse.

I'm a big Vitters fan and I think you're reaching with him and really reaching with Castillo. The offense will add Jackson and Rizzo to Starlin, that's about it for the immediate future. The offense has pretty much been putrid while the pitching has been solid. The offense needs a bunch of help, the pitching doesn't. Anibal would fit very well into that as well. Especially since we'd be overpaying much less for Anibal than for Hamels in both years and dollars.

I didn't say I'd go 5/100 for Anibal, I said that was the highest I saw his price going. I'd probably stop at something like 4/80 or 5/90 for him (if that). And that was the lowest price I could see Hamels going for. I think he'll end up at something like 6/138 or so. Possibly more if the Yankees, Red Sox, or Dodgers feel like they really need him. If the difference is 1-2 years and 40-50 million, I'd rather have Anibal. If I'm way off on projected prices, I might reconsider Hamels. And again, it's cheaper and fewer years that interests me about Anibal. I don't want to commit to a pitcher through his age 34-35 seasons at the price point Hamels is likely to receive.

I don't know. I didn't think not getting Cespedes for the perfect contract would stop them from pursuing him, but it did. Maybe finances really are as tight as some think. Again, yes, Hamels is the better pitcher. But recent stats indicate the difference isn't that significant and if we can have him at a much cheaper price and for 1-2 fewer years, then it makes sense to look into that. As for your points: 1. Yes, the injury history is there, but we're only locked in for 4 years, 5 tops as opposed to 6 and maybe 7 for Hamels. That helps mitigate that risk. 2. Not sure how this matters, other than Hamels was on a better team than Sanchez. 3. Not ideal, I agree, but he's put up very good numbers the past couple of years despite that. 4. He came within 5 and 4 innings the past two years. It's a concern, yes, but it's another reason why we're not locking him into a 6-7 year contract like we would Hamels. 5. Anibal gets groundballs 44% of the time, Hamels gets groundballs 43% of the time. They each struck out more than 9 batters per 9 innings last year and Anibal was less than a K/9 away from Hamels two years ago. The biggest difference between the two is BB/9, which Hamels does have a pretty big advantage in.

Disagree. The "strength" of our farm system right now is bats. By next year, we should have three major young offensive pieces under team control for a long time. Pitching-wise, we have nothing in the upper minors. Our best pitching prospect is looking more and more like a reliever. And if this year's team has showed us anything, it's that good starting pitching 1-5 can keep a bad team competitive in most games. We have Garza as an elite arm in the rotation, Shark has shown signs of hitting the mid-top of the rotation arm potential he had, and Volstad and Wood can be decent mid-bottom of the rotation guys. The strength of our farm is our bats, but the strength of our major league roster is our pitching and most of it is fairly young.

Sanchez doesn't need to be underpaid to be much less expensive than Hamels. He doesn't have the extended track record that Hamels has and his injury history, while concerning, will also keep his price and years down some. It wouldn't surprise me if Anibal's high-end price would be something like 5/100 while Hamels' low-end price would be something like 6/120.

Anibal is a few months younger than Hamels, but both will be 28 all year this year and 29 all year next year. So their ages are very similar, but the contract years difference added to the total value difference likely will be rather large.

We could use more than 1 elite starting pitcher, sure. But the need isn't nearly as pressing as it was to add an impact bat this past offseason. I'm not necessarily opposed to adding Hamels, I simply don't really want a pitcher making $20+ million per year into his mid-30s. There's immense risk involved there. And Sanchez is a very risky signing as well, but in signing him we'd (in my scenario) be locking him in until he's between 32-33 and we'd be paying him something in the area of $30+ million less in total value. If Sanchez breaks down, it hurts us far less than if Hamels breaks down. Add in that Sanchez has been somewhat comparable to Hamels the past couple of years (8.6 fWAR for Hamels vs 8.2 fWAR for Anibal) and I think Anibal is the lesser risk with still plenty of upside to take advantage of.

When the cost difference between them could be two years and upward of $30 million in total value? Yes, the risk is greater with the far more expensive pitcher. Basically, if we're going to invest a bunch of money into a pitcher, I'd rather keep the contract length under 6 years. I think we can do that with Anibal, I seriously doubt we can with Hamels. That we can get Anibal much cheaper is simply a bonus. And 29 isn't real old, but it's a lot older than it is for a hitter and especially so when the 29 year old pitcher has more than 1,200 innings on his arm. If we had a major need for an elite starter, I might think differently. But I don't think the gamble is worth taking when the need isn't strong.

I'm not into pinching pennies either, I was one of the most vocal supporters of Pujols/Cespedes/Darvish on this board this offseason. However, giving a pitcher who will be 29 next year a 6 year deal (likely for Hamels, I think) is generally a really bad idea. The inherent risk with a pitcher is much higher than for a position player anyway, then you add that Hamels will be 29 and has tossed more than 1,200 innings in his career so far and you're not making a very good gamble. And that's even assuming Hamels hits FA. With Anibal, you do have an inferior pitcher, but this team doesn't have a dire need for an elite ace like it had for an impact offensive player. We already have Garza to be the elite arm on the staff, so the need isn't as high to add another high-end elite arm. Anibal has been a 3.8-4.4 fWAR pitcher the past couple of years, very similar to Hamels' 3.7-4.8 fWAR range throughout his career. Now I'm not going to argue that Anibal is as good as Hamels, he's not. But Anibal can be a borderline elite arm and has shown the past couple of years the ability to be a top of the line pitcher much closer to the Hamels and Greinke mold than previously. Basically, you don't take on the immense risk a massive FA pitcher contract entails if you don't have to and the Cubs don't have to since they have Garza.

Stuck? He was a set-up man for a year and a half. And he probably had his best season in that one full year as a set-up man. And Wetteland was really good during that time as well.