A closer look at all of Jim Hendry's "bad contracts"
by DGU on Jul 23, 2009 10:51 PM CDT
Email
PrintAgain and again, I'm reading about the mess of Jim Hendry's massive contracts. Don't get me wrong, I shudder as much as the next Cub fan any time I think of Alfonso Soriano's contract. Setting that one aside, however, my sense is that Hendry's free agent signings have more often been bargains than busts. But I wanted to really look into it.
Over at fangraphs, they have a nice feature at the bottom of each player card which translate WAR (Wins Above Replacement) into dollar values. Using those valuations, I thought I'd compare Jim Hendry's major contracts with their actual value.
Mark DeRosa 2007-2008 Value $27.9; Cost $7.5; Difference +$20.4
Derrek Lee 2004-2005 Value $34.3; Cost $14.5; Difference +$19.8
Aramis Ramirez 2007-2008 Value $41.8; Cost $27; Difference +$14.8
Michael Barrett 2005-2007 Value $25.9; Cost $12; Difference +$13.9
Gregg Maddux 2004-2006 Value $37.3; Cost $24; Difference +$13.3
Ryan Dempster 2006-2008 Value $27.7; Cost $15.5; Difference +$12.2
Aramis Ramirez 2005-2006 Value $31.6; Cost $19.5; Difference +$12.1
Ted Lilly 2007-2008 Value $27.1; Cost $16; Difference +$11.1
Todd Walker 2004-2006 Value $15.9; Cost $6.8; Difference +$9.1
Glendon Rusch 2004-2006 Value $12.7; Cost $4.4; Difference +$8.3
Michael Barrett 2004 Value $9.9; Cost $1.6; Difference +$8.3
Alfonso Soriano 2007-2008 Value $36.5; Cost $30; Difference +$6.5
Jason Marquis 2007-2008 Value $15.1; Cost $12; Difference +$3.1
Jeromy Burnitz 2005 Value $6; Cost $5; Difference +$1
Jacque Jones 2006 - 2007 Value $11.4; Cost $11; Difference +$0.4
Bob Howry 2006-2008 Value $12.1; Cost $12; Difference +$0.1
Cliff Floyd 2007 Value $2.3; Cost $3; Difference -$0.7
Kosuke Fukudome 2008 Value $8.2; Cost $10; Difference -$1.8
LaTroy Hawkins 2004-2005 Value $4.1; Cost $8; Difference -$3.9
Nomar Garciaparra 2005 Value $2.3; Cost $8.3; Difference -$6
Scott Eyre 2006-2008 Value $5; Cost $11; Difference -$6
Derrek Lee 2006-2008 Value $32.3; Cost $39; Difference -$6.7
Carlos Zambrano 2008 Value $12.7; Cost $20; Difference -$7.3
Mike Remlinger 2003-2005 Value $1.4; Cost $10.8; Difference -$9.4
As you see, through 2008 Jim Hendry has done fairly well, better than I'd expect. On the other hand, some of the worst contracts are ones still going. Looking these over, once could definitely make the case that Jim Hendry under Andy McPhail was a supreme bargain hunter. On the other hand, Jim Hendry loosed of Andy McPhail has been in the playoffs more often.
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.
152 comments
|
4 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I find it hard to take WAR seriously
went it values it values Barrett at an average TWELVE million per year from 04-06. Now I don’t hate Barrett or anything but that is just INSANE.
"I daydream just like everybody else, I just do it with my body facing the field, so everybody thinks I'm paying attention."- Greg Maddux
by Doggie Stalker on Jul 23, 2009 11:03 PM CDT reply actions
The guy had a great bat, give him some credit
I’m pretty sure that Fangraphs’s WAR doesn’t take catcher defense into account, as it’s difficult to measure (there is no UZR for catchers)
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. -- Bruce Bartlett
Forget the defense
Was his hitting worth 12 million a YEAR.
"I daydream just like everybody else, I just do it with my body facing the field, so everybody thinks I'm paying attention."- Greg Maddux
by Doggie Stalker on Jul 24, 2009 12:13 AM CDT up reply actions
If I understand it correctly...
that is for the duration of the contract, not the per year figure.
This season IS over. -BLou 6/30/09
If you add up the value WAR claims for Barretts three years 12 million
PER year is the average. I was not using his actual WAR amount but the amount they claimed he was worth in total for those years. In fact the WAR state claims the Cubs SAVED 23 million by only paying him “only” 13 million over those three years
Sorry but again how can you take that seriously.
"I daydream just like everybody else, I just do it with my body facing the field, so everybody thinks I'm paying attention."- Greg Maddux
by Doggie Stalker on Jul 24, 2009 12:24 AM CDT up reply actions
1 WAR is worth $4.85MM
At least this year. WAR valuations are based on how much a marginal win is worth given a season’s current economic climate. Therefore a league-average ballplayer (2 WAR) is worth ~$9.5MM
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. -- Bruce Bartlett
Frankly I think it is nutty stat
especially if it does not value a CATCHERS defense. I have nothing against Barrett but I think those numbers just point out how dumb a stat this is.
"I daydream just like everybody else, I just do it with my body facing the field, so everybody thinks I'm paying attention."- Greg Maddux
by Doggie Stalker on Jul 24, 2009 12:49 AM CDT up reply actions
It's just really hard to evaluate.
It would drop the value down a little bit, but the Cubs would still have great value on that contract.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. -- Bruce Bartlett
Eventually...
we may get to the point where there is a SABR approach to evalutating a catcher’s defense, but it’s not there yet.
As far as WAR goes, it is probably the most well-rounded metric available right now. If you think its “dumb”, I would suggest following this link and reading how WAR is calculated and how the Dollar Value per WAR is derived. It really sheds a lot of light on the subject.
This is the part that I have trouble buying...
So a league-average player is worth $9.5 million? That means that if you were league average at every position and five league average starters in your rotation and a league-average closer (with everyone else being replacement level), you should have a payroll of around $135 million (14*9.5 million + change)?
If that’s the case, then I don’t people are REALLY underpaying for performance. Such a team should theoretically be a middle-of-the-pack team (~81 wins), right? But $135 million would be among the top-5 payrolls in all of baseball.
That’s why I’m not sure I agree with this analysis. The real market rate for a league average player is not $9.5 million per year, even if WAR valuations suggest it is. So saying Hendry is getting value for these contracts based on WAR valuations might not be fully appropriate. It might be highly overstating the true return on investment here.
typos...
Second paragraph should start “If that’s the case, the people are REALLY…”
I need to edit better!
To finish my thought...
Hendry may be getting “value”, but I would look at it relative to what other GMs are getting. Based on the translated WAR valuations, we should be seeing every league-average player getting $9.5 million per year. But that’s not really the case.
So while Hendry may be getting “value” for his signings according to this WAR translation, he may be getting much less value compared to other GMs. That’s the relevant consideration. It’s not the value Hendry is getting compared to WAR valuation that matters – it’s the value Hendry is getting compared to what other GMs are getting for similar spending.
I'm fairly sure
that what fangraphs is comparing is relative to what other GMs are getting. Remember “league average” is still significantly better than “replacement level.” And your point that a team full of league average players would cost too much is precisely why you can’t build a championship team without getting bargains on players, most often through cost-controlled farm-developed talent, but sometimes also through the kinds of bargains like Hendry got on Mark DeRosa and first-contract Derrek Lee.
In looking at this, we have to separate some ideas here. We may think Jim Hendry is too reliant on the free agency, especially post-McPhail. That’s a criticism worth debating. My original question, however, was whether or not Hendry is overpaying or getting good bargains. If you believe fangraphs’ accounting, Hendry does very well.
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
Setting aside the accounting issues...
If you believe those, then I think it’s fair to say he’s done well in his free agent signings through 2008. But that is shortchanging the issue moving forward. Remember that most of Hendry’s contracts are backloaded. So he’s getting his players’ best years of value at the lowest cost of the contract. It’s the back end of the contracts that are the problem.
For example, in 2009, Hendry is getting literally zero production from the ~$10 million being paid to Marquis/Vizcaino. So the Marquis deal is now a net loss. He’s getting far less than value for Soriano this year, so that’s a BIG net loss. And the Soriano contract looks pretty bad moving forward, as he’s heading into his decline years and making a lot more money in the later years. Fukudome lost money in his cheapest year. He may be of value this season (depending on his second half), but his cost goes up a good bit on the back end. It remains to be seen what Bradley and Zambraano do on the back end of their deals. Same for Dempster.
So even assuming FanGraphs’ accounting is correct, it’s not really appropriate to look at many of those deals (especially the bigger ones) and say he’s done well. Hendry does appear to have done pretty well with his lower-cost free agents (like DeRosa and Todd Walker). And he’s had occasional success on the bigger contracts. But the bigger contracts are really looking bad at the moment.
All we can do is look at where we are now.
This isn’t a finished analysis by any stretch of the imagination. But if I want to ask, how are these going to play out, it’s worth asking how they’ve played out up till now. I think Hendry has done a lot better up to now than a lot of people thought. And I think that become relevant as we look at the Bradley signing. Bradley looks bad now, but I will not be surprised if he ends his three years worth more than we paid him.
Re: Marquis – first, I believe I included what we paid him this year in his cost, but not what we paid Vizcaino. I don’t think it’s fair to include Vizcaino’s cost because that’s a separate issue, one that gets into Jim’s ability as a trader. After that, there are two ways you can look at Marquis’ contract. One, you can look at Marquis’ performance and say that if we had kept him, he’d be a bigger net win. Two, you can look at Jim organization when we signed Marquis, look at the fact that they tried to trade him the year before, too, and see that Jim took a gamble on Marquis, that they could rehabilitate him and trade him and get out of the last year on that contract. Marquis’ contract was backloaded, I believe, because we never intended to pay that last year. His deal is different than Soriano’s.
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
The problem with "up to now" is that some of the deals are backloaded...
For example, you’ve ignored the $9.875 million for Marquis this year (he had a $21 million contract, you’ve accounted for $12 million).
Soriano’s deal gets much bigger on the back end, in his declining years. Fukudome’s deal gets bigger on the back end. Bradley’s does too.
So you’re comparing past production to lower-cost years in several cases. And you’re looking at lower costs in years that are likely to be more productive.
A couple things.
I haven’t done in-depth analysis on fangraphs’ stat, but I’m assuming that the value dollar on WAR changes each year with de/inflation. So, let’s not confuse deals that have some inflation with “backloading.”
Secondly, I counted everything we paid Marquis in my analysis, including the 875,000 we paid him this year. So, there are two ways we can analyze Jason’s contract. We can look at what we got v. what we paid. That’s what I did above.
Or we can look at what he’s given (to any team) v. what he’s been paid. I’ll do that here:
Jason Marquis 2006-2009 Value $26.7 Cost $21 Difference +$5.7 and counting
This is one of my points – a lot of these players that have a bad rap, still out-perform what we’re paying for them. Dempster is a great example. When he was a reliever, he wasn’t a great bargain and he wasn’t particularly loved. But he managed to produce last year at a wonderful level and become an overall bargain.
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
Why did you include 2006?
His contract was from 2007-2009.
by SouthernCub on Jul 24, 2009 10:12 AM CDT up reply actions
Ah, it was a typo...
but again, Marquis has been a first-half pitcher for his career. So when you consider that, he’s likely to lose value the rest of this year.
I simply based my statement on averages. He averaged about $7.5 million in value the last two years. Repeating that would cut into his value.
by SouthernCub on Jul 24, 2009 10:15 AM CDT up reply actions
I can't blame Hendry...
…much for the backloaded part, because I would guess that was a directive from the Tribune. They were mostly willing to spend because they knew the club was on the block and they would be out from under these contracts before they escalated to their highest levels. This would leave them with higher profits while they were still collecting the profits.
This has backfired a bit because the sale has taken so long, but I do have to say I am not as happy with Hendry on his overall selection of FA’s (as they fit into what the club needs) and also all the no-trades he has put in place.
Bottom line, they are already paying a nice chunck for Marquis to pitch for someone else and it could be very expensive to clean up some of these other contracts.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
And Marquis wouldn't likely have been a bigger net win...
He’s averaged $7.5 million per year in value. Repeating that would have been a loss for this year, because he cost $9.875 million this year.
Wait, what?
For example, in 2009, Hendry is getting literally zero production from the ~$10 million being paid to Marquis/Vizcaino.
I think you’re confused about the details this deal. The Cubs paid about $3M of Vizcanio’s salary (the rest was picked up by the Indians) and $850,000 of Marquis’ salary. So you’re overestating Hendry’s committment by $6M.
And, if he's going to insist on counting Viz against us
then he’ll need to count the value of his 0.00 ERA innings for us.
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
The $4.85 million per win
is what you expect to pay to a free agent.
Regardless of what's been said...
… about WAR and what it actually means, I just wanted to say I liked your post. It made me think about valuation stats in a different way. A team whose starters were all free-agents (whose contracts, taken together, were of typical length) would expect to pay $135-mil for an average team. I think that’s pretty useful.
Fangraphs had Barrett worth
9.9 in ‘04, 11.5 in ’05, 12.7 in ’06, and 1.7 in ’07. In what I did above, I kept the ’04 contract separate and gave it its own line. Then I added the values from ’05-’07 and compared them to the costs paid in the same years.
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
AMEN
This analysis is crap.
Cubs will win 79 to 83 games. Season has been over for weeks. St. Louis will eventually run away with this division. And you can print it. BLou (7/21/09)
perhaps
BLou can give us some of his crap analysis to compete with this?
I would love to hear BLou's insightful deconstruction of the WAR statistic
…and Fangraph’s value calculations.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Jul 24, 2009 10:40 AM CDT up reply actions
it's your
appreciation of subtlety and nuance that makes you a fan favorite…
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Jul 24, 2009 10:15 AM CDT up reply actions
I knew Barrett would be a stumbling block for a lot of people.
Barrett hit really well in 04-05, especially when compared to other catchers. How many catchers can you think of that post a .485 SLG?
Since 06, though, Barrett’s reputation among Cub fans was decimated by Lou’s all-out attack. His defense was never good, but I think we now remember it as even worse than it was, while also forgetting his hitting value.
Indeed, I’m curious what you think of Barrett’s defense since Maddux himself stood up for Michael prior to his trade to SD that year. On the other hand, I know there was talk Maddux preferred not to work with Michael while a Cub.
All that said, I think it is incredibly difficult to quantify catcher defense statistically and if you think Barrett’s defense should give him a huge hit on value, then just pass over this one point as an anomaly.
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
Yeah he turned out to be a pretty good signing
Considering how he came from relative obscurity; Oakland by way of Montreal, right?
Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.
Montreal by way of Oakland.
Billy Beane inserted himself in that to get Damian Miller from us.
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
Billy Beane at his finest
Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.
Wait, wait, wait
I can’t take seriously anything that tries to tell me Howry was essentially worth what he was paid.
I’m sure that’s just my gut-reaction, after all, I still twich a little when his name is mentioned, but I don’t believe he was “worth” $12.1, unless that’s just dollars and not millions.
It never gets to be easy
by chitownhawkeye on Jul 24, 2009 12:05 AM CDT reply actions
Howry was awesome in 06-07
His terrible 2008 really knocked the overall value of that contract down
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. -- Bruce Bartlett
Like Milton Bradley circa 2008.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Jul 24, 2009 2:29 AM CDT up reply actions
Why use stats
When you can use your subjective, flawed memory?
I work for the Cubs so I am really getting a kick out of a lot of these replies.
by joeschmitt on Jul 24, 2009 3:17 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
I think this is one reason why we overreact in criticism of these contracts.
We often base our memory of players on their most recent year playing for us. So Howry and Barrett ended their terms for us and we forget the good they did for the team in the years before.
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
Bad Contracts
What’s scary about these backloaded contracts is that we have $116 million Guaranteed to 9 players on our roster for 2010. It will be interesting to see what the new ownership does this offseason. Two of those 9 are Aaron Miles and Jeff Samardzija.
Then after 2010 you lose Derek Lee and Ted Lilly unless they are extended before then.
Hey, Hey! Hey, Hey! Hey, Hey!
There's a TON of money coming off the books after that though
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. -- Bruce Bartlett
to be fair
you are talking about after 2011. I mean … teams that have a lot of money on the books for 2012 right now … well that’s quite minimal.
Yeah
But the Cubs are a team that can spend some money. Having a bunch coming off the books when your payroll ceiling is 60MM is a lot different than when it is 120MM
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. -- Bruce Bartlett
Im with doggie stalker
This is made up crap. Hendry can find bargins but has no idea how to build a team!
Any one who gave him over a C was just over looking the $ 175,000,000 he wasted on the cubs outfield (25,000,000 back for year one of sori’s contract because the cubs don’t make the playoffs that year without him) . My only question is does he have the guts to fix the mess he created? I say no but I always give people the chance to surprise me.
BTW: great fan post. I may disagree but it is thoughtful and well put together! :)
(This story was produced by BCPDnewservice. Our motto: If you don’t like this story then suck it!)
by BrewCrew'sPrinceofDarkness on Jul 24, 2009 3:50 AM CDT reply actions
Hopefully, someone with a better understanding of fangraphs' statistical rationale
can show up and defend their stats. I’d also be interested to see how Baseball Prospectus’ player cards value some of these players, but we’d need someone with a BP subscription and some time to check things.
I think, though, regarding the poll grade, you can say that Hendry has gotten better free agents, but then complain that he’s been too reliant on free agents. I think they’re separate issues. But, then the question is – for this year, would you rather have an “overpaid” OF of Sori-Dome-Bradley, or Sori-Dome-Pie/Hoff given that both of those guys have not hit well in regular play at all?
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
I think he's done well on cheaper free agents...
But I think he’s gotten (or in the process of getting) the short end of the stick on the larger free agent deals. But this is harder to see when the analysis is cut off at 2008.
Through 2008, he had gotten pretty good value. But that’s because all of his big contracts were backloaded. Thus, we don’t see the bad part of those deals until 2009 and/or later.
Is this a larger/smaller issue?
Or a McPhail/post-McPhail issue?
That asked, the Ted Lilly deal was a bigger deal and it’s been good. When people say, “the bigger deals” I wonder if they’re referencing anything other than Soriano. Most people here aren’t complaining about the Zambrano deal.
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
I was referring to the bigger deals as a collective...
I’m not saying he has gotten hosed on all of the deals. Just that he hasn’t done very well on average on the big deals.
For example, he got a net loss out of the Marquis deal (the smallest of the “bigger” deals). He is very likely to get a net loss out of the big Lee deal. He’s likely to lose value on the Soriano deal. He’s currently losing value on the Bradley deal. And I wouldn’t be surprised to see him lose value on the Fukudome deal. And based on these calculations, it’s very possible that he’s going to get less than value on the Zambrano deal (if Zambrano doesn’t get back up to the 4-5 WAR level, for example).
The Dempster deal has been good value so far, and the Lilly deal has been huge. The Marquis deal was fine for the first two years (because the deal was backloaded), but would likely have lost money this year. It would have probably been a net breakeven had he not been traded for nothing.
Thus, on aggregate, I’d say he’s done poorly on the bigger deals.
I'm sitting here jaw-dropped as I read your analysis of the Marquis deal.
Maybe you haven’t been following Jason this year – he’s already provided more value than he’s been paid. Marquis is going to have to pitch with a 6.00 ERA for a while to start to cut into that value he’s provided.
I’m trying to figure out your analysis, and I guess you’re counting Vizcaino’s salary in as part of the loss, which I don’t think is fair. We don’t know what else the Rox might have offered in trade, or other teams might have offered for Jason, to determine whether it was the trade that was the mistake, not the signing in the first place.
As for your assumptions on these other deals, you certainly have a right to your opinions. And in many cases, they match my first impressions. But then, how many people expected Z to start pitching better this year? How many expected DLee to turn it around this year? How many people expected Marquis to be an All-Star this year?
Maybe Jim Hendry’s record up-to-now should give us pause in our assumptions about how these deals are going to work out.
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
For a guy who talks about decline phases a lot...
You seem pretty willing to ignore it in this discussion. Shouldn’t we expect these players in their early/mid-30s to start to decline?
Again, you’re comparing the cheaper part of the big contracts to the better part of these players’ careers. Moving forward, we will be comparing the more expensive part of the contracts to the (expected) decline phase of those players’ careers.
I’m not questioning your analysis. I just question the conclusion that we should be happy with Hendry’s deals when the expected bad part of a lot of his big deals have not been realized.
To this point, it’s been a net positive. I agree there. But do you really believe that those big deals will work out on the back end?
by SouthernCub on Jul 24, 2009 10:28 AM CDT up reply actions
isn't he
doing this in real time? “This is what we’ve spent so far, this is how they have produced”. He’s not projecting to the end of the contracts, is he?
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Jul 24, 2009 10:35 AM CDT up reply actions
Exactly.
The cost of a win will only go up as salaries continue to inflate. That means that yes, the players’ salaries will grow as the contracts run their course, but so will their value in real dollars.
But their performance is likely to decline...
which means that their value is unlikely to keep up with their cost.
by SouthernCub on Jul 24, 2009 10:42 AM CDT up reply actions
You have no idea if that's true.
And either do I. Neither one of us has projected the rate of salary increase versus a curve of player performance by age.
We do know that the backloaded deals aren’t worth nearly as much in future dollars as they are now. You’re looking at the numbers and thinking in terms of today’s dollars, which is not what those numbers represent.
Backloading is a smart strategy; Hendry takes a lot of heat for it around here but much of it is unjustified.
again
that’s not the point of this post. It’s a “at this moment in time” evaluation.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Jul 24, 2009 10:54 AM CDT up reply actions
yes, he's doing this in real time... BUT
He seems to be suggesting (in the threads, at least – not as much in the fanpost) that Hendry hasn’t done so bad with his deals. The problem with doing that is that several of the contracts are incomplete, and the part that hasn’t happened yet is the bad part.
So my point is that doing a “real time” analysis is shortsighted – a point he somewhat notes in the fanpost.
by SouthernCub on Jul 24, 2009 10:42 AM CDT up reply actions
That's kind of a weak criticism.
You keep harping on Marquis, but he’s is a great example of how the situation can change. 2.5 years ago, when Marquis signed, people moaned and groaned about how Hendry was overpaying and how it was a terrible contract.
But when you total up the numbers, even including the Vizcaino’s salary, Hendry got his money’s worth, and got rid of the contract before the backloaded year even kicked in. In retrospect, what everyone said was a terrible contract was well worth the money we actually spent.
by Wreckard on Jul 24, 2009 10:45 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Let's set Soriano aside for the moment
because no one defends Soriano’s deal.
If you set that deal aside – and just for the moment – what are all of Jim Hendry’s “bad contracts”? See, the one I think may turn out the worst is Zambrano’s and NO ONE complains about that deal. Bruce Miles’ article (linked below) even includes it as one of the bargains!
The other deals people complain about, again you can reference Bruce Miles here, are the Dome and Bradley contracts. And I do not think those are going to turn out to be bad deals. For one thing, they’re not that long. We’ve got Dome’s age 32-34 seasons to come (including this year) and Bradley’s age 31-33 seasons. If Bradley gives us one big year in the three, which seems likely given his career, and especially likely to be his walk-year, then he’ll make up for his pay.
I also think Dome’s failures have been linked to Lou’s irrational expectations that he could be a middle-of-the-order threat. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Dome’s batting much better 1st or 2nd in the lineup than anywhere else. Loosed from the pressures to be what he isn’t Dome will be a succesful OF for us, I believe.
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
The Bradley and Dome deals also aren't all that expensive
People see $10M and think that’s a superstar’s salary. But that’s just over league average, in terms of expected wins per dollar. I mean, for crying out loud – Kyle Lohse has a bigger, longer, more expensive contract than Bradley.
Well I'll complain about the Zambrano deal based on fangraphs...
It’s been bad to this point, and he’ll have to get better than he’s been in the past to make up the difference. This year has so far been basically a wash with expectations.
I see the Marquis deal as a wash (as explained above).
The Bradley deal COULD be a wash, but I’m not expect it. With his injury history (he’s topped $13.5 million in value once, and that was as a DH) it’s going to be tough. I certainly wouldn’t call it likely, as he basically has ~2.3 years to get $30 million in value. He’s only averaged about $10 million in value per year for his career. Even considering inflation, that’s not going to be easy to make up.
Fukudome is still an unknown. This year, he’s very likely to make his value (unless he falls off again like last year). He may or may not turn out to be a good deal. It’s really hard to tell at this point, given that we have so little MLB experience to work with.
Hendry has had bad fortune with the Ramirez and Lee deals in that both have had major injuries. Those might have been really good otherwise. But injuries are part of the package unfortunately. The Lee deal has been bad, and the
The Lilly deal has been great. I’m skeptical of the Dempster deal, but it has looked great so far. Those are unequivocal big deal wins for Hendry.
And why are you setting aside the Soriano deal? It’s the biggest and worst of the deals. That’s very relevant. And that’s going to be a big loss. So you have a couple of big wins, a push, two question marks (one that I think will wind up a loss), and three losses (two of which are going to be BIG). Thus, on average, I’d say he is going to have gotten the short end of the stick when all is said and done.
by SouthernCub on Jul 24, 2009 10:56 AM CDT up reply actions
I'm setting aside Soriano for the moment
for the moment
because I think it colors the way we look at all the other deals too much. It’s a singular deal where Jim Hendry wanted, finally, to go after the big free agent. And looking at that off-season as a whole, Jim did a good job of choosing who to go after. A package of Lilly-Marquis-Soriano has been much better than Zito-Schmidt-CarLee (taking the other bat he could potentially have taken with the pitchers who were considered the big guys to get).
And then we have to ask whether DeRosa and Lilly would have signed with the Cubs had the Cubs not been making a splash. Why choose Chicago over Philly, if you’re Mark DeRosa and the Cubs appear happy to float along in mediocrity? Why, if you’re Ted Lilly and a fly ball pitcher, do you come to Wrigley Field, when numerous other teams want you, including other AL teams where you’ve pitched your entire career and don’t have to bat.
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
You can't set
aside the biggest, worst deal. He is not only overpaid, he is not only unproductive, he not only plays terrible defense, but he fills up a spot in the lineup and the field where you would expect to have a major contributor. For the next 6 years if we want a new impact bat, it will have to be a center fielder, and finding a power bat in center field is not only difficult, its way more expensive than finding a big bat in left.
I don’t think you can just ignore Soriano just because we all agree it’s a bad contract. By that token you should ignore DeRosa because we all agree it’s a good contract.
Soriano is such a horrendously bad deal, I don’t think we can fully comprehend how much he is going to haunt us long after Hendry is gone.
DEJESUS!!!
And here's a good place to come back to the Soriano contract
because the absurd hyperbole on Alfonso is tiresome. It’s a bad contract. It’s not as bad as comparable contracts (V. Wells, J. Pierre, GMJr, and I think eventually T. Hunter’s will look worse, too).
But, sure, it is a bad contract which will hamper our team at the end of the deal.
Now everyone is piling on Soriano as he goes through a bad year. To say that he us “unproductive” ignores the first two years of the contract and assumes that he can’t bounce back even though he’s bounced back from bad years in TX, too.
Now, here’s the real question. If Soriano produces 3/4 years in the first 4 years of his contract, and that was your window for a championship, why not fire off one bad contract to get that difference-maker player?
Sure, we’d all rather we’d gotten Carlos Beltran. I think Jim Hendry wishes McPhail had let him get Carlos Beltran. But players like Beltran are the exception to the free agency rule. It rarely happens that players like that are out there to get. More often even the best players in free agency are flawed players.
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
As for the Marquis deal, yes I was counting Vizcaino...
and my reasoning is that that is the value we got from the deal. It’s a part of the package. The backloaded contract was precisely the reason Hendry traded Marquis, so the trade is part of the deal in my opinion. It was a $15.5 million deal over three years, and we got $15.1 million in value.
by SouthernCub on Jul 24, 2009 10:30 AM CDT up reply actions
WAR was stupid... and we were stupid
and love means nothing…
There is no such thing as an ugly female breast
While his contracts look good from this perspective
His handing out of No trade clauses forced the team into a corner. On an individual basis there are certainly names on this team that deserved a NTC when they signed (Lee, Aramis, Soriano, Z), but you can’t give every player one that has a long term deal. What is happening now is that we have a “core” of guys who are all good players on paper, but most of them are struggling this season or have been hurt. There is nothing we can do with those “core” players but hope they succeed because we can’t move them.
So while I’m not saying SELL SELL SELL, I do think it would be nice to know that should there come a July where we are out of it, we could move some of these guys to other teams without so many hoops to jump through.
For example there were a few radio and other reports that suggested the Cubs were trying to move Derrek Lee this offseason, they weren’t able to because there was a very limited amount of teams he would waive his NTC for, if any (yeah I know he has 10-5 rights, but its just an example). If there came a time Hendry wanted to trade Aramis, or wanted to trade Fukudome, or Dempster, or Z, or most of all Samardzija, he has limited his ability to do so. So what he managed to do was get us stuck in this gray area of guys who might be suffering from decline (Soriano, Z), guys who aren’t that good (Dome, Dempster, Samardzija), and even if Hendry wanted to move them he couldn’t do it without their permission. It was a good plan because it opened a World Series window, but barring a miracle, its a plan that has failed and probably (IMO) cost Hendry his job after the window shuts either the end of this season or next season.
Just say no to players named Aaron on the Cubs.
Im inclined to agree with most of that
But no one can tell if those guys wouldve signed here had it not been for the NTC; When teams are tossing around 8 or 9 figure deals, I would imagine you need some sort of other carrot to get the guy to sign, that being said, its not the wisest long term strategy.
Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.
This is another factor to consider.
The NTCs save us money on these contracts, but have a cost in overall team construction.
I think Jim gives them out, though, because he’s genuinely player friendly, and I think that has value that’s hard to quantify as well.
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
The 10-5 rights trump the limited NTC.
With 10-5 rights you can reject a trade to ANYONE.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Yeah which is why
Lee, Aramis, and Dempster would have them anyway.
I think Samardzija is the NTC I have the biggest issue with, but did Fukudome really need one? To be honest- did Soriano need one? He doesn’t strike me as somebody who gives a crap where he’s playing as long as he gets his paycheck.
Just say no to players named Aaron on the Cubs.
Soriano, when first signed
made a big deal about being glad that he’d be in one place for the rest of his career. He seemed tired of moving around. He did get traded twice pre-free agency.
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
Interesting
again, if you looked at each player on an individual basis, they probably all deserved a NTC. The problem is when they all add up.
Just say no to players named Aaron on the Cubs.
But only Soriano and Fukudome have relevant NTCs...
And no one would trade for Soriano’s contract anyway, so it’s a moot point.
by SouthernCub on Jul 24, 2009 10:20 AM CDT up reply actions
Samardzija's is pretty relevant
Since he would have been very tradeable this winter, before everybody knew he wasn’t quite was good as was thought.
Just say no to players named Aaron on the Cubs.
Yes, Samardzija's deal is relevant...
So replace Soriano with Samardzija (because Soriano’s contract makes him virtually untradable for the first 6-7 years anyway), and we have only two possible players for whom the NTC might matter. And one of those two (Fukudome) absolutely wouldn’t have signed otherwise. In fact, it’s possible that Samardzija wouldn’t have signed otherwise, as he could have played football instead.
It looks bad on paper, but in reality these NTCs aren’t a big issue, in my opinion.
by SouthernCub on Jul 24, 2009 10:32 AM CDT up reply actions
I'm pretty sure Fukudome's was a dealbreaker issue...
He was very particular about where he played coming over from Japan. I don’t think he’d have signed with Kansas City, for example. Thus, I would be very surprised if he signed to any MLB contract without a no-trade clause. He had the bargaining advantage.
by SouthernCub on Jul 24, 2009 10:19 AM CDT up reply actions
I would say
that one of Hendry’s biggest continued mistakes is not the major contracts (though I think Soriano’s was a big, big mistake) but his penchant for handing out 2 million dollar contracts to players who are easily replaceable for the MLB mininum in any farm system. Contracts given to guys like Miles, Womack, Neifi, etc don’t sound like much on the surface, but when you make a habit out of paying retail for EVERYONE, your salary gets up there with the big boys quick, without having as much as you should to show for it.
Agreed also on the importance of NTCs on making these contracts worse.
Lastly, many of the contracts are backloaded. Which means if you only look at 2008 and prior, you are seeing the “win now, save my job” part of Hendry’s actions, and not the “holy crap, this is an increasingly expensive, increasingly old and unproductive” consequences of his follies.
Do this study in 2 years and see if you still think Hendry has made wise investments.
DEJESUS!!!
The minor contracts
Jim Hendry gives reward contracts that are far above and beyond “retail”. The Blanco, Neifi, and Miles contracts were so far above what those players were going to get from any other team, the only way to look at them is to say that Jim Hendry wanted to reward a man who, in each of those cases, was considered a good man by all the people who knew him.
I really don’t have a problem with this, because I wish businesses I work in (if these businesses were swimming in cash) would look at guys who work hard, do the best they can with their limited talents, and gave them rewards for it. In each case, these guys were role players and I don’t think we were hampered from winning by these contracts.
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
giving a guy like Miles extra money is fine
When you have extra money. It isn’t fine when you have your blank check taken away.
Just say no to players named Aaron on the Cubs.
The "backloaded contracts"
A lot of the “backloaded contracts” people point to look worse than they do because, for example, the player got a signing bonus which isn’t being counted by the critics. For example, Carlos Zambrano got a $5 M signing bonus, which I included in his overall 2008 cost. His salary goes up from 15 M to 17.75 M from 2008 to 2009, but this is hardly a backloaded contract. It just increases with inflation. And, in fact, because of the signing bonus, he’s actually paid more in ’08 than any other year of the contract. I included that bonuses in my “cost” analysis as far as I was able.
All this is to say that I think people overplay “backloaded contracts.”
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
Depends on which backloaded contracts you refer...
Soriano’s contract is very backloaded. As was Marquis. Same for Bradley. Zambrano’s contract was definitely less backloaded.
This was my point. People overestimate the "backloaded"ness when they ignore the signing bonuses.
Bradley got a $4 M signing bonus. And he’s making $5 M this year. He gets paid $9 M next year and $12 M in 2011. That’s not backloaded. That’s fairly standard inflation.
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
I'd still argue that that's backloaded...
That’s a greater than 15% inflation rate for Bradley. I don’t believe standard inflation is that high.
by SouthernCub on Jul 24, 2009 10:01 AM CDT up reply actions
Oh God, you had to bring up Hendry and his signing.
Cue BLou’s rant…..now.
"Pounding sand since 1982...."
Well thats the point of the entire post
So I dont see what your objections are, for better or worse, Hendrys decisions have gotten us to this point
Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.
Huh?
Did you mean to reply to my post? I was just making a joke that this BLou’s favorite (and recently only) thing to rant about. How Jim Hendry and his screw suck. They should be fired by the new ownership…etc.
I personally like Jim Hendry a lot.
"Pounding sand since 1982...."
DGU, thanks for putting this together.
At least you’ve attempted to quantify what Jim Hendry has done for the Cubs during his tenure.
Looking at it overall, Hendry’s signings look decent midway through the 2009 season. It’ll be interesting to see how with Soriano’s deal and some of the contracts the Cubs picked up prior to this season how it grades out in the next few years.
I love to play baseball. I'm a baseball player. I've always been a baseball player. I'm still a baseball player. That's who I am. - Ryne Sandberg
Mike Remlinger
Here’s to you Mr. Anti-LOOGY. too bad Dusty never figured out that you weren’t a LOOGY
---AC 00 00 00 - Believe
Bud Light presents "Real Men of Genius."
Today, we salute you, Mr. Lefty-Who-Can’t-Get-Lefties-Out-Guy.
"I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said." ~William F. Buckley, Jr.
by Goodie1969 on Jul 25, 2009 8:45 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
LOL
I reject your reality and substitute my own.
by WayneCampbell08 on Jul 26, 2009 6:48 PM CDT up reply actions
Bruce Miles has an interesting take on this today
I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson
by Shanghai Badger on Jul 24, 2009 10:09 AM CDT reply actions
Reading this and this fanpost
I think I’ve come around to not being so mad at Hendry. He took a major gamble and probably failed, but at least he had the balls to take the gamble.
After 2006 he opened a 4-year window (IMO) to win a World Series. He spent with a blank check, got players here and won us two divisions in a row. It reminds me of what the Pheonix Suns did in the NBA. They had developed talent like Amare, went out and made a big FA splash (Steve Nash) and opened themselves a window to win.
That window looked like it was closing after a number of playoff failures, they brought in Shaq (like we brought in Milton) to make one last effort. Of course that blew up in their face and they are stuck in limbo for the next five years. The same thing is happening here.
Just say no to players named Aaron on the Cubs.
That goes along with what I was getting at by contrasting the years Hendry was with McPhail and the ones without.
I think if McPhail was still here, we wouldn’t have signed Soriano, but I also think that if we hadn’t signed Soriano we wouldn’t have made the playoffs Lou’s first year.
Jim Hendry has the skills to search for bargains, but going bigger in the free agent market has taken us to the playoffs two straight years, and potentially 3 or even more years in a row, while also saddling us with deals that, on their own, may not be bargains.
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
I've kind of done a 180 since I started reading this thread
No way McPhail gets Soriano. Even if he is going to pay for it I’ll give him credit for growing a pair and trying to give us what we all want so bad.
Just say no to players named Aaron on the Cubs.
I agree with you on both on Soriano and 2007
And the window, to an extent. But it’s going to take some creativity to make the team better, unless Ricketts spends like a drunken sailor. I don’t think Hendry has that in him.
What bugs me more than the money given to Soriano, Bradley et al is the contracts that he’s handed players like Miles, Neifi, Rusch, etc, when there was no market for those players. That has contributed a lot to his hands being tied.
I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson
by Shanghai Badger on Jul 24, 2009 11:00 AM CDT up reply actions
It certainly has
and Hendry is still going to lose his job over this whole thing. Those over market deals were really nice of Jim, and he was able to get away with it before all his big deals started to fill out his budget.
I don’t think Hendry can fix what he has here without Yankee money.
Just say no to players named Aaron on the Cubs.
I wonder . . . is a division title this year without the WS a bad thing?
In other words, does it save Hendry’s job?
I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson
by Shanghai Badger on Jul 24, 2009 11:21 AM CDT up reply actions
Hendry has gotten a lot of bad press already
Winning the division in a year like this won’t help much especially if the Cubs go three and out in the playoffs again.
And the eighth and final rule: if this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight.
Division titles are nice
but its all about the World Series
Just say no to players named Aaron on the Cubs.
Yep
That’s why I worry – would they fire a GM who would have 3 straight division titles?
Granted, they could get hot in the postseason if they get there, but the Cubs are not in the same class as LA of PHI
I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson
by Shanghai Badger on Jul 27, 2009 10:31 AM CDT up reply actions
Fair point
I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson
by Shanghai Badger on Jul 27, 2009 10:31 PM CDT up reply actions
LA didn't have a full season of Manny
That put them on our level
Just say no to players named Aaron on the Cubs.
But they weren't over-market deals
DGU’s diary shows that, given the current price of wins, Hendry’s deals have largely worked out so far.
You have to accept a pretty ... interesting.... set of assumptions.
For instance, that Glendon Rusch provided $12M worth of value to the Cubs, while the league was batting .302/.357/.449 against him in 2005, and an amazing .320/.395/.625 against him in 2006.
I suppose that 130 or so decent innings in 2004 was worth, what, $20 million in FanGraphs’ opinion?! Because the league tagged him to the tune of a .308/.369/.505 — .874 OPS, 82 OPS+ for the next 200 awful, awful innings on that contract over the next 2 years.
That’s not replacement level – that’s “if you’re employing this guy, you will lose games” level. If Glendon Rusch’s contract shows up as more than $12M in positive value, then the entire algorithm is flawed. There is no other explanation. His value was very, very negative for 2 of the three years he was a Cub.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
I'm not convinced Fangraphs' valuation system is completely right.
I wish I still had a BP account to compare. But Rusch did manage to log 145 innings in 2005. They saw that as worth 7.8 M. They agreed that his 2006 was bad and worth negative 3.3 M. I included that in the value, subtracting from the positive worth they gave him in 2004-05.
So, what about that 2005? Yes, he was pasted, but 150 innings of league average ERA is worth something. Is it worth nearly 9 M on the free agent market? That’s the question. Or, at least, one of them.
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
I wouldn't pay $7.8M for a .302 BAA.
I don’t think that anyone would. I can’t think of any free agent transaction, ever, where a team gave a pitcher $8M hoping that he’d “only” let the league bat .300 off of him.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
You confusing which stats to use, I think.
You’re looking to more advanced stats with which a team can better predict future performance. But basic stats like ERA tell us what actually happened that year. Sure, Glendon Rusch may have been lucky to provide league average ERA, but that is what he actually did.
For example, if I knew I could get league average ERA out of a pitcher, I wouldn’t care if the league hit .400 against him, I’d take the raft of quality starts. On the other hand, if I had that same pitcher, who the league hit .400 against and had no guarantees what he would provide the following year, well, then you’re right. I wouldn’t give him a single start and I’d do everything in my power to trade him to a divisional rival.
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
Those are two very dumb contracts
Kyle Lohse isn’t a good pitcher and the Cardinals paid big money for a contract year performance.
Just say no to players named Aaron on the Cubs.
How about Carlos Silva? Ian Snell?
Those are the really dumb contracts.
My point is, these kinds of contracts are what inflates the price per win for pitchers. There are a lot of teams out there willing to overpay for mediocre pitching. That’s the market.
Two things
1. Do we know who started this trend? Was it the Yankees, can we look at one specific signing and say that was teh starting point?
2. Can the pattern be stopped and go back to mediocre pitching getting a mediocre salary?
Just say no to players named Aaron on the Cubs.
Very interesting perspective on contracts.
Thanks DGU for taking the time to post this analysis.
Hey, it's a new century!
by cowsarecool220 on Jul 24, 2009 10:15 AM CDT reply actions
The problem with spending money is that it keeps you from spending more money later
How many Cubs fans would love to be able to try to sign Albert Pujols if he tests the free agent market later down the road? Guess what. We wouldn’t be able to do it. The Cubs need somewhere to stash Soriano in the future and that’s likely going to be first base once D-Lee’s contract expires. If Soriano can’t cut it at first base, then the Cubs have been saddled with an expensive contract.
Keep in mind that there’s a lot that’s going to disappear off the books in the next few years. The Cubs will not resign Rich Harden in the offseason, so he will depart via free agency. Unless Milton Bradley puts up excellent numbers next season, the Cubs will attempt to trade him after 2010. The final year of Derrek Lee’s contract is also 2010 and given that the Cubs might want to move Soriano to that position, he’s not coming back. Reed Johnson will likely be gone after this season too.
And the eighth and final rule: if this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight.
Wow.
That’s a lot of nonsense state with an undeserved sense of authority.
Soriano a first baseman in 2 years? Won’t resign Harden? Bradley will be traded this offseason?
What numbers are going to win the lotto tomorrow, out of curiosity?
Due for an eye exam?
Read it a little closer. Here are the notes:
1) Rich Harden’s contract ends in 2009. What incentive do the Cubs have to resign him when they have cheaper options? The payroll is bloated enough already. That’s why I say he’s gone after this year.
2) I don’t know where you got this offseason for Milton Bradley when I clearly didn’t say that. Read a little closer:
Unless Milton Bradley puts up excellent numbers next season, the Cubs will attempt to trade him [b]after[/b] 2010.
Is it 2010 this year? This offseason would mean I claimed [b]before 2010[/b] or [b]during 2010[/b]. Note that during 2010 could also mean the following offseason.
3) What do you do when an outfielder can’t be hidden in left field anymore? You put him at a position where he could do the least amount of damage, which is first base. This is more conjecture, which could be noted from my post:
The final year of Derrek Lee’s contract is also 2010 and given that the Cubs [b]might[/b] want to move Soriano to that position, he’s not coming back.
The key word is [b]might[/b], as in there is a possibility that it can happen. If I said, “the Cubs will move Soriano to first base,” that would imply that it is a certainty. Do you honestly think the Cubs would give a contract extension to Derrek Lee at his age? And I thought I was very clear in my post.
And the eighth and final rule: if this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight.
And that's what I get for posting at a message board at the same time
I accidentally threw bb tags in there, which will probably make it more difficult for people to understand. Meh.
And the eighth and final rule: if this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight.
1) Rich Harden’s contract ends in 2009. What incentive do the Cubs have to resign him when they have cheaper options?
If he’s available at a below market rate, then you sign him. The Cubs have shown an ability to keep him healthy and pitching; I’d imagine he’d be interested in staying. The question is, why wouldn’t we sign him if we can? We have no idea what the Cubs payroll will be next year so it’s beyond premature to start saying that the payroll is too bloated to sign him.
3) What do you do when an outfielder can’t be hidden in left field anymore? You put him at a position where he could do the least amount of damage, which is first base.
If Soriano is indeed hurt, then his poor defense this year is a function of that. The fact is that he’s been a plus defensive left fielder every year until this, so I’m inclined to think this year’s an aberration. The bar isn’t very high for defense in left, so he’d honestly have to be even worse than he is this year for things to get that bad.
But what if I'm right?
The loaded question people don’t consider is that what if you’re seeing the beginning of a decline?
And the eighth and final rule: if this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight.
I know - and what if he's cursed by a witch and gets turned into a frog?
Where would we put him then? We’d owe $80M to a frog! Stupid Hendry!
It’s not a loaded question, unless you mean that it’s loaded with nonsense. We’re talking about a position that Carlos Lee plays. Carlos Lee. Soriano would have to get significantly worse for that to even be worth considering. As bad as Soriano has been this year, he’s right in the middle of the pack in terms of ZR and RF for all qualified left fielders in baseball.
And those stats don’t take his arm into account, which is his biggest asset defensively, and largely responsible for his positive defensive value over the past 2 years.
To add to that
We’re talking about a position that Ryan Braun plays
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. -- Bruce Bartlett
huh?
I’ve never heard ANYONE suggest that Soriano would play first base. RAMI, on the other hand…
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Jul 24, 2009 12:35 PM CDT up reply actions
I repeat
And I will keep repeating this question:
Where do you hide a left fielder that becomes a defensive liability? Is this really that hard to figure out?
And the eighth and final rule: if this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight.
Generally
teams hide OFs that are defensive liabilities in LF.
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
And I know this fact already
But what do you do with a player that shows he can’t play LF either? In the AL, the DH is an additional option.
And the eighth and final rule: if this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight.
I mean Soriano's range is down this year
but he’s not even approaching Carlos Lee / Manny Ramirez / Adam Dunn levels, and one can still hope that if his legs heal he can be a fair enough LF
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
Adam Dunn is a poor comparison
The DH was made for guys like Adam Dunn, which is a major reason I shuddered at the idea of him playing RF for the Cubs.
And the eighth and final rule: if this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight.
Considering the difficulty
Soriano has had with his glove this year, do you REALLY want him at first digging out Riot and Rami’s slop throws?
If he declines that much, you put him on the bench, as a pinch hitter, and we have to listen for years about it from BLOU.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Jul 24, 2009 12:57 PM CDT up reply actions
Where do you hide a player with a defensive liability?
The answer IS left field
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. -- Bruce Bartlett
Damn
You’re a colossal idiot if you actually think that Soriano would do less damage at first base than left field. Just who do you think touches the ball more in a game, a LF or 1B?
Derrek Lee (2009)
Putouts – 651 & Assists – 55
Alfonso Soriano
Putouts – 161 & Assists – 5
I reject your reality and substitute my own.
by WayneCampbell08 on Jul 26, 2009 6:59 PM CDT up reply actions
Just want to add to the din here
This is probably the best thing I’ve read on this site in months (and good discussion too!). Great work DGU
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. -- Bruce Bartlett
My Article
I took some time today trying to figure out the best way to get out of the mess created by Jim Hendry. Yes, the Cubs have won more under him than anyone else, but he also had money that no other GM has had.
by BlogChicagoSports on Jul 24, 2009 8:48 PM CDT reply actions
Free Agency is a crapshoot to begin with.
You rarely get what you paid for. I prefer trading and building up a team.
Randy Wells. A product of the Roy Halladay School of Pitching, located in Toronto, Canada. Possible relocation.
If what you say is true (and I'm not arguing that point)
then that would make Jim Hendry a genius given what he’s gotten out of the free agent market.
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
Right, and drafting/developing prospects *isn't* a crapshoot?
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. -- Bruce Bartlett
C
I gave JH this grade based on Sori, Bradley, and Fukudome’s contracts. He made up for it by locking up and trading for Aram, Lee, Demp, BigZ, and Lilly.
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." -Sir Winston Churchill
Soriano shows up as #6 in ESPN's piece on "Least Trade Value"
This isn’t a piece with real solid analysis, but it does give us something to compare Soriano to.
Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
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!
Recent Stories in Chicago Cubs Game Threads
Recent Stories in Ticket Exchanges
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
