The problem with this offseason...
by shawndgoldman on Dec 9, 2006 7:12 PM CST
55 comments
has been the team's repeated expenditure of significant funds on the type of talent they already have at their disposal. They signed Mark DeRosa to a $4M/season deal when he is not likely to significantly outperform Ryan Theriot. They agreed to pay Henry Blanco ~$3M/season, even though Geovanny Soto can probably give the team similar production. Wade Miller is coming back for one year at the price of $1.5M. More recently, the team signed Ted Lilly and Jason Marquis to contracts totaling $17M/season. Those two are less likely to be disasters than Prior, Marshall, Guzman, et al. are, but they're also less likely to have breakout seasons.
In total, the team will spend around $26M per season on those four players, none of which should be expected to provide much more than league average production at their positions, and most of which i would expect to provide below league average production at their respective positions.
Now, i know the first counter-argument to this is that my criticism comes from a misunderstanding of the current market. This may be so - i am far from fully comprehending baseball economics (i seriously doubt anyone else around here does, either). Thus, instead of criticising these contracts in isolation i'll use some examples of how this money could have been better spent on other players signed in this market. This should take the market context into account quite well, since anyone signed this offseason was signed under the exact same market conditions.
Consider: $26M/season and around $78M in total, all of the deals paid out over the next 4 years.
Clearly, starting pitching was a concern going into this offseason. I would have preferred the Cubs have signed Jason Schmidt as opposed to Lilly and Marquis. Together, those two will make ~$50M over the next 3 years. Schmidt signed a 3 year, $47M contract with the Los Angeles Dodgers. They should have applied this money towards signing Jason Schmidt, offering him the same $50M over 3 years. This would have bested the Dodgers offer by $1M per season, giving him an extra incentive to move away from the West Coast for a few years.
The rotation wouldn't be as deep, but i think would certainly be better: Z, Schmidt, Hill, and 2 of Prior/Dempster/Guzman/Marshall/Mateo/Marmol is a far cry better than Z, Lilly, Hill, Marquis, and one from that group.
That leaves around ~$9M/season. That's the same amount of money Julio Lugo will be making per season. Ideally, the Cubs would trade Ceasar Izturis to allow Lugo to play SS (and Soriano 2nd). If they couldn't trade Izturis, one of them would move to 2nd base (with Soriano moving to LF). Alternatively, the Cubs could have signed Luis Gonzalez to a 1-year, $9M contract, put him in RF, and then re-allocated those funds next offseason.
Now i do understand that there have been reports that Schmidt and Zito want to stay on the West Coast, and reports that Lugo would only sign with a team that had a vacancy at SS. However, we can still use the contracts these players sign to estimate what it would take to obtain a player of their caliber, in the current market.
I also expect many of you to have problems with one or two of the players i'd prefer to the ones the Cubs signed, and i also expect many of you to be in favor of some of the acquisitions the team made. However, i don't think many of you would prefer the whole suite of acquisitions made by the team when one considers alternative expenditures of the same payroll amount.
Thus, i'll put it to a poll and discussion below. I won't participate in the discussion much, as
1.) I've said my piece here and want to let everyone else discuss these ideas on their own, and
2.) I've got to leave for San Francisco tomorrow morning to deliver a 20 minute talk (which i haven't finished preparing)... and i have yet to pack.
I'm going to limit the question to only covering the pitchers signed at the winter meetings, to reduce the variables one has to consider when answering.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.
0 recs |
55 comments
Email
Print
Comments
on Hank White...
by DTJchris on Dec 9, 2006 7:10 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
indeed
by BackInBlue on Dec 9, 2006 8:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Correct.
I see a backup catcher who plays great defense and is respected by the pitching staffs -- and yes, I know the CERA was higher with him than with Michael Barrett. Think that might have something to do with who he was catching the last month of the season?
Henry Blanco's experience is well worth the extra money. And yes, that is something that cannot be measured on a stat sheet.
by Al on Dec 10, 2006 3:50 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
My findings haven't changed, but only a little bit.
If we use Fielding Runs Above Replacement (FRAR) and Batting Runs Above Replacement (BRAR) as a means to measure the run production by both Barrett and Blanco we'll get a good idea how much each player produces.
Over the last three seasons, Barrett has had FRAR's of 19, 10, and 0 to go along with BRAR's of 22, 23, and 26. His total FRAR over this span is 71 while his FRAR is 29...a total of 100.
Blanco's FRAR over the last three seasons has been 32, 20, and 21 while his BRAR has been -8, 1, and 3. His total FRAR is 73 while his total BRAR is -4 for a grand total of 69.
Both of these stats are counting stats meaning that the more playing time you get, the more runs above replacement you produce. We know Barrett has been the primary catcher while Blanco has been the back-up the last two years with the Cubs (Blanco was the starting catcher by default in Minnesota in 2004). So we have to adjust for playing time.
Barrett has caught 2951 innings over this span while Blanco has caught 1796 innings.
If we adjust Blanco's innings caught to equal Barrett's, Blanco's combined FRAR becomes 120 rather than the 73 we began with.
If we do the same thing for plate appearances since BRAR is the player's value at the plate, Blanco's BRAR over the last three seasons become -7.
Combining the two, Blanco now has combined to produce 113 runs above replacement for the same exact amount of playing time that Barrett has received as well as the same number of plate appearances.
Simply put, Blanco is more valuable than Michael Barrett. To be precise, he's 13 runs above replacement better over the last three seasons, which is a little under 5 per season. The first time I did this my handy dandy calculator showed that Blanco was only -14 runs worse than Barrett...a minimal difference. I have no idea how I got those numbers, but I've ran these twice and they're correct.
Blanco is a more productive player than Michael Barrett and he's worth every penny he was signed for.
Now, I don't believe Blanco could keep up his pace of play playing over a full season, but Barrett has shown himself to be rather fragile as well. He caught 1081 innings in 2004 and since then, it's been down to 1018 and then down 852. He's taken a beating behind the plate and he may literally not have the balls to continue playing a full season behind the plate either. Therefore, I don't believe any adjustments for playing time and age are necessary.
Blanco is a more valuable player than Barrett. He's worth more where it counts--defensively (this is the most important defensive position on the field) and he actually makes less money than Barrett. If I were Hendry, I'd be trading Barrett for a starting pitcher this offseason. Let Geovany Soto take over the back-up duties that Michael Barrett SHOULD be doing.
This idea that stat guys can't see these values is way off, Al. These values are present and apparent if you take the time to find them. I emailed Shawn last night after I read this thread trying to explain my reasons for disagreeing with him on the Blanco/Barrett issue. I'm positive Shawn will take a more in depth look at this when he gets a chance. Others who haven't should do so as well. Blanco shouldn't just be a back-up for the Cubs, he should be starting. If you want to take the time to find the numbers...they're there. You just have to be willing to search for them. I agree that some aren't, but please don't group all stat-guys into the same group. Many of us do search for those hidden numbers.
by Maddog on Dec 10, 2006 10:33 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Your statistical analysis...
But that wasn't what I was talking about at all.
What I was talking about was Blanco's ten years of experience, which might -- just might -- one day on the field, allow him to, say, throw out a runner, or call a pitch, against a certain hitter just because of that experience -- something Geovany Soto simply doesn't have.
I'm sorry, but you just cannot measure that on a stat sheet.
Now, I also agree with your statistical analysis. I would trade Barrett, and I still think a deal involving him, a pitcher (Sean Marshall?) and Felix Pie, perhaps could bring Vernon Wells to Chicago. Hell, throw in Matt Murton, too (and remember, I LIKE Murton). An OF of Soriano in LF, Wells in CF and Jones in RF would be pretty darn good.
by Al on Dec 10, 2006 11:22 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
But...
I'm not trying to argue that you've listed don't have value. They most certainly do. I just disagree that there is no way to find them in a stat sheet. They're there. You just have to find them.
I mean, if Blanco excelled at calling a certain pitch due to his experience, it would show up in the stats. Blanco would be credited with an out that perhaps another catcher would not have gotten. If he throws a runner out, he's also credited with that and his FRAR reflects these things.
I'm not trying to say Soto would do as well. He wouldn't. I've never tried to argue that would be true and have always been in favor of re-signing Blanco because of these things you mention...things that are present in the stats if you want to find them.
There's no stat column for calling a certain pitch, but the outcome of those decisions he makes behind the plate are indeed reflected in his overall value as a defensive catcher, which is above average.
Neifi Perez would undoubtedly make a decision or two or three or more over the course of the season that Jose Reyes shouldn't have made. Neifi's stats would reflect that, but are those great decisions made by Neifi (not made by Reyes at his young age) enough of a reason to continue to give ABs to neifi over Reyes if that was the choice a manager had? There may be a circumstance or two that presents itself where you'd prefer to have Neifi (I can't think of one off the top of my head, but I am positive one or two exist), but over the course of the season and the following seasons it would be smart to stick with Reyes.
Just because there isn't a column on a stat sheet doesn't mean it's not included. In fact, if we look at Dewan's Fielding Bible, things such as plays to the left, straight on, and plays to the right are included. Even balls dug out of the dirt are being counted for 1st basemen.
If we're talking about the value of being able to call a pitch by Blanco that Soto wouldn't because of experience...what is the value of being able to do something once or twice that someone else can't? How many situations arise where experience becomes more valuable than skill? Again, I'm not saying Soto should have his job. I think the rest of what I've said leaves no doubt where my opinions on this matter rest.
Things like you've mentioned are present. Using two extremes, couldn't we expect the fact that Blanco is a better "pitch-caller" than Barrett to show up in the defensive stats? I mean, if he is indeed better (and he is...BY FAR) behind the plate, then the numbers should show it if they're accurate. They do.
by Maddog on Dec 10, 2006 12:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
hey maddog
by Thelonious on Dec 10, 2006 4:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You mean...
by gravedigger on Dec 10, 2006 4:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You pay them...
by Maddog on Dec 10, 2006 6:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I wish
by gravedigger on Dec 10, 2006 6:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah...
But this is the Christmas time...you could always put this on your Christmas list.
by Maddog on Dec 10, 2006 6:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That...
by gravedigger on Dec 10, 2006 6:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
ohhhh...
Baseball Prospectus is heads and shoulders above the rest though. I also check out The Hardball Times and Fan Graphs to look at WPA and they did an outstanding study on pitch location recently that everyone should check out.
I'll use Baseball America, MinorLeagueBaseball.com, the Baseball Cube, First Inning, or Jeff Sackman's split minor league database that Al first pointed out on here several months ago (at least I think it's Sackman's...Al???) for minor league stats.
It really depends on what you're looking for. Between all of the stat sites out there you can pretty much find anything you want...especially if you include Bill James' handbooks and John Dewan's The Fielding Bible is as good a book I've found about defensive statistics. I'll often check that out (it's only updated through 2005 though he did list the best at each position in Bill James' 2007 Handbook). I'm unsure if he has anything online where he updates these stats after games or weekly or whatever.
I've not gotten into Win Shares as much as some have. I prefer WARP because I basically haven't done enough reading about Win Shares to know a whole lot about them. I think I have a book called Win Shares that Bill James helped write, but I've never sat down to read it. Don't take that as me saying I don't like them or don't trust them. I think they're every bit as reliable and accurate as WARP is...it's just a matter of what I've chosen to use more often.
by Maddog on Dec 10, 2006 6:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Minor League Splits...
About Win Shares, I did read James' book. I think the stat has some validity, but I view it with some skepticism.
I do want to read The Fielding Bible. Maybe later in the offseason.
by Al on Dec 10, 2006 7:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That's what I thought.
I'd like to understand more about Win Shares and I suppose maybe I should finally read that book. The one thing I'll say for Win Shares that i can't say about WARP is that they've taken the time to explain in detail how they reach the numbers they do. You have to dig and dig and dig to figure out how WARP is calculated, and even then, it's still not as great a definition as I'd like, but BP does that for a reason...one i don't really agree with. It's like a cook not giving out a recipe. What's the point of that? No matter what, no other person is going to be able to duplicate another's recipe due to the quality of ingredients one may buy, the simple techniques that the writer of the recipe uses that seem silly to the person making it at home. I don't understand that, but I've gone way off base here.
You can find how they calculate WARP. You just have to look more than you should. Same with PECOTA. Fortunately, the 2004 Prospectus handbook has laid out in detail how they come to those projections.
That's one of the things I like about THT. The site is viewable by anyone and they don't have a subscription to sign up for. They seem to be more available to the public than BP is. But, the quality of the stuff at THT just isn't quite as good as it is at BP though it's close.
I think anytime someone presents one number people should be skeptical. I know I've done it to make a point before, but I always try to include at least 3 or 4 stats, because the value of stats is in large part centered around the entirity of them.
by Maddog on Dec 10, 2006 8:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not that I'm a professional cook...
OTOH, if I say something is Hits+Walks-SBxAVG = ???? there isn't much variance there. How many hits or walks or whatever there happen to be, is judgment. The art here comes in choosing what ingredients to use-what stats make the most. If they gave you the formula, they'd, in effect, be giving you the ABILITY to replicate the EXACT dish they just made.
Anyway, that's my take. Is there any sense in there? You tell me.
by tyger1147 on Dec 11, 2006 5:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Except...
by tyger1147 on Dec 10, 2006 12:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
There were two CGs.
Cheap, but it's in the books. Go look it up. Hill threw two CG's in 2006.
by Al on Dec 10, 2006 7:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And JFTR...
The Cub club record was three, set in 2004. Now it's two.
by Al on Dec 10, 2006 7:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The funny thing is
I'm not sure any amount of money was going to bring Schmidt from the west coast, but then again Gil Meche is willing to go to the pit that is Kansas City for an extra $10M.
Having money and spending it is great if it is done wisely. This post and DmL's post in another thread show that it looks like the Cubs haven't done that this offseason, and it could be VERY problematic down the road.
by gravedigger on Dec 9, 2006 7:13 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
no contest on your poll
by cashcowsquirtingsourmilk on Dec 9, 2006 7:14 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Your post.............
What they did need - and STILL need - is a solid arm to throw the day after Zambrano.
How many times must this be stated before someone in the organization understands?
by tville on Dec 9, 2006 11:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The common thread is veterans
And if/when Prior or Miller (Or both) crap out, we do have some guys to plug in with some experience, rather than last years Z, Maddux, and the kids rotation we had.
by Nibbles on Dec 9, 2006 8:28 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
injury
by roach on Dec 9, 2006 8:29 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Lilly has..
Why would you boo your own team's player (Marquis), just because he used to be a cardinal? That doesn't sound very smart. I'm not happy that we have him either, but its moronic to boo him for no reason.
by Thelonious on Dec 9, 2006 10:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Previously said
by jballgame on Dec 9, 2006 8:44 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
That's irrelavent.
by shawndgoldman on Dec 9, 2006 8:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
There WAS no other Schmidt.
And, to address your second point, the Cubs had three options this offseason:
- Sell away the farm system (already a rather weak thing, as we're constantly told) to upgrade.
- Pay through the nose in free agency.
- Stick with a club that came within a hair's bredth of losing 100 games last year, and pray that your fan base doesn't depart.
"But!" I can hear you saying now. "They should've saved their money for down the road, when there were better options!"
Well, I've got two words for you: shareholder dividends. Money not reinvested in the on-field product becomes Tribune Company money, which is either used to pay down Tribune debts, finance other Tribune operations, or paid to shareholders as revenue. It doesn't get put in a bank account to use down the road.
We can argue the particular signings Hendry made. We can argue whether or not this was a bad year to try to buy our way into the playoffs, or whether free agency has become more of a crapshoot with revenue sharing and TV money allowing more teams to lock up their stars.
But we'd be in even WORSE shape if we'd given away the farm (literally), and there would be an open revolt if the team did nothing to improve.
by cwyers on Dec 9, 2006 10:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
False choice
by scareduck on Dec 9, 2006 11:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
OK, two points.
2.) You misunderstand my argument about saving for the future. I do not assume that if the team saves $7M this season they'll have an extra $7M to spend next offseason. However, what i do assume is that they're going to have some budget next year. Since all these contracts are for more than one season any contracts we sign will count against next year's budget. In this particular example, if they didn't sign Lilly and Marquis, then their 2008 payroll would be ~$17M lower than it is today. I think its reasonable to expect that if the team hadn't signed these two, that $17M would still be available for the 2008 budget.
* - Just for example... A package of Guzman (who i love and think will outpitch Marquis this year), Eric Patterson (to play CF), and a bullpen prospect from the mid-minors may have at least gotten the Sox to consider sending Garcia our way instead of to Philly.
by shawndgoldman on Dec 10, 2006 12:57 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
der...
should have read:
Yes, there were only two available via free agency, but others are available via trade, and may not have required selling the farm.
by shawndgoldman on Dec 10, 2006 12:58 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Schmidt came to the Dodgers
by scareduck on Dec 9, 2006 11:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Correct again...
by Al on Dec 10, 2006 3:52 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Like...
j/k sorry (I've come to accept (reading through older articles and such) that Schmidt was going to the West Coast-I can change my mind.)
by tyger1147 on Dec 10, 2006 12:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
For every player
by Maddog on Dec 10, 2006 12:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
are you really saying
seriously?
by circuitclout on Dec 10, 2006 2:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think...
He also assumes every ballplayer does drugs, steroids and beats their wives--including Derek Lee. He thinks this so that he can take an analysis of players without taking into consideration their personalities and moral character. As in, he'd much rather have Barry Bonds on the Cubs than Jacque Jones or Matt Murton.
I think it's safe to assume he thinks that.
by tyger1147 on Dec 10, 2006 3:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Point lost
by BlueMike on Dec 9, 2006 8:49 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Not necessarily
I don't think the moves reflect an opinion of the young talent. I think that the team is in win-now mode, and does not believe playing rookies (no matter how highly touted) is compatible with a win-now attitude. Moreover, I think they hope to use those young players in case they are still in it at the break.
by gravedigger on Dec 9, 2006 8:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Disagree -- vehemently so
by BlueMike on Dec 9, 2006 9:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Explain to me
Jim Hendry gets very little flack for the Cub minor league system continuing to suck. I don't understand that. Even Brian Cashman of the Yankees is accountable for having a quality minor league system. But Hendry? Nope. The failures of the Cub farm system date all the way back to when he was personnel guy. It's not just the first round flops (Harvey, Montanez, Brownlie, Christensen). It's all the flops. Pathetic. And the reason why useless piles of dung are handed $28 million contracts in free agency.
by BlueMike on Dec 9, 2006 9:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
They don't fit into the plans...
My point was, in a win-now atmosphere, rookies are usually shunted in favor of veterans. In this case Hendry made the (unwise) move to sign Marquis instead of Marshall, because Marshall is a vet. I don't think there's a correlation between signing vets and not having faith in young guys.
Hendry still believes in them, but he's going to, I think, turn them into trade material.
by gravedigger on Dec 9, 2006 9:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Don't forget
by cubz1963 on Dec 10, 2006 11:23 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Hey...
by thekansasian on Dec 9, 2006 9:22 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
the Marshall Plan
He was a pretty damn good pitcher the first 3 months. Since then I've thought he'd probably do well in 2007. Another reason why I hate the Marquis signing. Also, if money was the only issue, the Cubs could have signed Schmidt AND Lilly. I'm not positive, but I think 5/75 would have convinced Schmidt to come here. He signed for 3/47. We'll never know for sure how much $ he was willing to leave on the table. Aramis gave up a lot. who knows. Maybe Schmidt just doesn't like the humidity.
by cashcowsquirtingsourmilk on Dec 9, 2006 10:35 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I agre with your main point.
by DudeVf1 on Dec 10, 2006 1:49 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Only issue I have this offseason so far
There is going to be some suiters for sure, Cubs better be in the hunt. Maybe a Marshall,Murton, Guzman and others to get him. He would look sweet in center.
by Johnny Callison was a Cub on Dec 10, 2006 12:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It was hinted...
by Al on Dec 10, 2006 12:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
DeRosa
by cashcowsquirtingsourmilk on Dec 10, 2006 12:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I just think
I mean with Marquis our best hope is that he turns into a 4.50 ERA guy.... before Marshall went way beyond his previous inning totals he was doing that for free. Guzman should now be fully healthy and last season was bizarre for him as well since he displayed a lack of control not seen anywhere in his career
by ksucubbie on Dec 10, 2006 11:33 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I guess that is my point
by gravedigger on Dec 10, 2006 11:40 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
exactly
its decisions like that that leave us without rafeal furcal, jason schmidt and carlos beltran.
by tomas21 on Dec 10, 2006 11:58 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Ok I vote Lilly/Marquis
Let's see WE HAD EXACTY TWO STARTING PITCHERS
we could count on :Zambrano and Maddux and one of them
is GONE. The Schmidt vs Lily & Marquis is false because
we already know Schmidt turned down more money to
go to Dogers ( though again if you throwm maybe and extra
2 years and 25 million he might have jumped). Schmidt
is a very good pitcher but not exactly an ace and FAR from a sure thing. In those last 3 years our pitchers dropped like FLIES
and that INCLUDES Marshall, Marmal, etc. Sure either of them
MIGHT be better than Marquis or Lilly but am not risking
my season on that AGAIN !. It was slim pickins out there
and I am dying to see what the Cardinals , Astros, Nats
Blue Jays etc do to fill their holes.
Sorry but Schmidt vs Lilly & Marquis is NOT 92 and letting
Maddux walk because we could afford "3" pitchers for
what he cost . Marshall, Marmol, Miller & Prior will all get
their chance at the rotation and if by miracle we got 6 or
7 starters great, stash one in the BP and trade the other
for something else
by jessica on Dec 10, 2006 3:50 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Cubs By The Numbers
Cubs By The Numbers is a history of the ballclub by uniform number, but the biographies help trace the history of our beloved team in a new way. For everyone who's a Cubs fan, anyone who ever wore the uniform is like family. Cubs By The Numbers reintroduces readers to some of their long-lost ancestors, even ones they think they already know.
Click here to order your copy, available now!
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
