Best and Worst Cubs Free Agents this Decade

An interesting article to help get your mind off the Cubs current play. I'll summarize Whittenmyer's list below:

WORST
1 Todd Hundley
2 Milton Bradley
3 Neifi Perez
4 Aaron Miles
5 Alfonso Soriano

BEST
1 Ryan Dempster
2 Jim Edmonds
3 Ted Lilly
4 Mark DeRosa
5 Alfonso Soriano

3 months ago digitalbenjamin 74 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Way too early

and a bit unfair to put Bradley in the worst category.

And I totally disagree with Dempster as the best.

There is no such thing as an ugly female breast

by Worf on Aug 21, 2009 9:02 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

… was signed off the scrap heap in 2004, had a couple of good years as closer and one good year as a starter. That’s really good production from 2004-2008 for not very much money. I’d agree with that.

I also agree with you re: Bradley. Too early to make that judgment.

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al on Aug 21, 2009 9:05 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I guess if you're talking about the totality

Of production vs. value, then Dempster should be higher.

But to me it’s all about production.

Mark Texiera cost the Yankees an arm and a leg. And it’s all worth if they win it all this year.

There is no such thing as an ugly female breast

by Worf on Aug 21, 2009 9:08 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Teixeira is on pace to be worth his $20m too with a WAR of 3.9 so far

What have we gotten for our $16m paid to Soriano so far this season? A WAR of -0.7. Youch. Jake Fox and Sam Fuld are both at 0.7 WAR right now, making league minimum, and generally sitting on the bench . . .

by madcow256 on Aug 21, 2009 9:34 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

WAR, huh? What is it good for?

Absolutely nothing. Say it again.

Fukudometer: Created 3/31/08 Wrigley Debut 4/5/08 WGN and Japan TV Debut 4/6/08 Sun Times Debut: 4/20/08 Coffee Table Debut: 7/17/08 (http://www.wearecubsfans.com)

by Fuk-U-Meter on Aug 21, 2009 1:48 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs

I have a question for those who cite WAR and other similar stats.

Let’s say you are considering two free agents, and are going to sign one of them. The dollar amount of the contract would be similar for both players.

But one has a 2.5 WAR, and one has a 1.8 WAR.

Would you, the stat oriented GM, always sign the higher WAR player? Always?

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al on Aug 21, 2009 3:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

No.

If the 2.5 WAR player is Vicente Padilla, I’d likely pass in favor of a player who won’t alienate my team and fanbase.

But the difference in numbers may induce me to take a risk on a player with a bad history if he can convince me he’s changed (see Hamilton, Josh or Bradley, Milton). I’m not saying those were entirely successful in either case, but again, they’re risks.

by redward on Aug 21, 2009 3:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Of course not

WAR is simply an aggregations of (mostly offensive) statistics that a GM would probably look at well before looking at WAR. It would stand to reason that any GM worth his salt would look deeper for the statistics he is interested in – some teams need more OBP, some teams need steals, others need defense, and some need guys who can knock players in.

Only someone like Jim Hendry would pick up a player because of a fantastic WAR and OPS+ and expect them to become a big left handed bat in the middle of the order. A smarter GM would see that the player in question is much better at getting on base than getting huge hits, and would adjust their decision accordingly.

by madcow256 on Aug 22, 2009 8:13 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is what fascinates me about Hendry's acquisitions this past off season.

On the one hand, Jim went for Milton Bradley, whom one could refer to as the “sabermagican’s choice” – a player who, even in limited playing time, could provide a remarkable amount of value. Yet, at the same time, Hendry gave a two-year deal to Aaron Miles, who even the most mathematically challenged among us (myself included) could see would never provide adequate value for that contract length and amount. How does this happen?

I've committed to tweeting about the Cubs for the rest of the season. (Does that sound as ridiculous as I think it does?) Anyway, if you're on Twitter, you can follow me here.

by dat cubfan daver on Aug 22, 2009 9:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

WAR is just a number, with pros and cons like any other number.

Its faults lie in the fact that UZR, while it may be the best defensive metric we have right now, sucks, and the positional adjustments it uses are completely arbitrary. The offensive component is sound. Of course, I don’t believe you can just stick a number on a player’s performance and say that is exactly how effective he was. Baseball is just way too complicated for that.

But the $4 mil a win thing is baloney. Yes, the total payroll of MLB divided by the number of wins in a season is about $4 mil. This is no way means that every win is worth four million dollars.

by cubsforever on Aug 22, 2009 3:32 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

How would you propose valuating a win?

For teams who aren’t the Cubs, winning can be the only way to get butts in the seats. Sure, the 56th win is probably going to have less of an effect than the 100th, but at least as of now, trying to valuate them all roughly the same seems logical, if kind of narrow. A team has inputs – money, and outputs – wins and losses. Why not try and correlate them?

by madcow256 on Aug 22, 2009 8:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well...

I dunno. It’s just that not all wins are created equal. If you have a 90 win team and you’re trying to push them over the top, it might be worth paying a little more than the prerequisite four million bucks per to get those last few wins. Similarly, if you have a crap team and you want a star to bring people to the ballpark, he might be worth paying above market value for. (Example: Adrian Gonzalez is worth more to San Diego than he would be to Boston. The Red Sox are going to sell out regardless.) Or if your team is missing a veteran presence, or needs help in one particular area, or something of the sort.

All I’m saying is that salaries and performance aren’t in a vacuum. For the most part WAR and dollar values do a good job. But I don’t completely trust UZR and I think there are lots of external factors that can cause a player’s value to fluctuate behind his actual performance. Spreadsheets are nice, but it is also important to put the numbers in the context of the real world.

by cubsforever on Aug 22, 2009 11:51 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wait, so assuming the Cubs win 90 games this year

That means the payroll should be 90 × 4 mil, or 360,000,000? I have trouble believing that…

"One time I went to a social gathering, I brought a bottle of Tanqueray and a shotgun and showed those motherf&#@ers the best time they ever had!"- Kenny Powers (Eastbound and Down)

"Why give 100% when 35 can still get you paid and laid."- Kenny Powers

by gridiron_assassin on Aug 22, 2009 5:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

i have learned

that there are some people who place way too much stock into the projections, and numbers, and these same people forget human element, which is the true difference in aw ain or loss too often

baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out

by Cubbie-Tim on Aug 22, 2009 6:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Some google searches have failed me

But I believe there is a baseline for how many wins a team full of replacement-level, league-minimum players would win, and the $4m is for every win above that.

by madcow256 on Aug 23, 2009 4:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Salaray is just a number too, you know

As we learned in Economics, what you really should care about is Opportunity Cost. Not only how much did you spend, but who did you have to give up to get him, who did he replace, and who is he blocking from having a chance to play in the bigs?

I cited WAR because it’s one of the better ways to look back and see if a player was worth their contract. Is it perfect? Of course not. But it’s better than saying “I feel like that was worth it.”

by madcow256 on Aug 22, 2009 8:05 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Of course.

I agree WAR is probably the best single evaluative tool we have right now. My point was just that it has to be taken with a grain of salt now and again (ie, there’s no way Adam Dunn’s defense is -2 wins bad whether or not UZR thinks it is).

by cubsforever on Aug 22, 2009 11:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good god y'all

by cubbybear on Aug 22, 2009 8:51 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Y'know, if Gordo ever shows his face in the Cubs clubhouse...

…I hope Milton gets up in it. Wittenmyer has sent out a number of snarky, derogatory tweets about Milton this season – and now this. To label Milton’s contract one of the worst this decade at this point in time is patently ridiculous to the point of irresponsible. And to call Bradley “thin-skinned” is a personal attack that begs for a personal response. Just because Bradley hasn’t played the mainstream media’s game according to their rules doesn’t make him “thin-skinned .”

I've committed to tweeting about the Cubs for the rest of the season. (Does that sound as ridiculous as I think it does?) Anyway, if you're on Twitter, you can follow me here.

by dat cubfan daver on Aug 21, 2009 9:19 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs

I agree it's too soon to put Bradley on the list...

but i’m pretty sure it’s universally known that Bradley is thin-skinned. It’s his right to do what he wants with the media, but you can’t deny he’s effected by the media and all the attention that comes with playing ball in Chicago.

I haz comedy show on Fridays. Come out and support a fellow Cubs fan? If you do, I'll see what I can do about Aaron Miles: Hot Beans Delivers

by digitalbenjamin on Aug 21, 2009 9:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

An individual being "thin-skinned" is a matter of subjective interpretation.

I don’t think it’s something any of us could “know” – certainly not “universally.” Many people might perceive Milton Bradley that way, but that doesn’t make it true. Personally, I think Milton is absolutely more emotional and perhaps sensitive than the average major league ballplayer. But I wouldn’t call him “thin-skinned.” I’d call him a human being – and an honest one at that.

He probably was affected by all the (mostly negative) media attention he received when he first arrived. And he obviously struggled mightily for the first three months of the season – but so did nearly every other Cubs hitter. But he’s stuck with it; he’s stayed on the field; he’s owned up to his mistakes; and he appears on his way to giving this team an OPS north of .850 for the second month in a row.

Wittenmyer has had a problem with Milton all season. And for him to be calling Bradley names and writing off his contract as one of the worst of the decade seriously undermines Gordon’s credibility as a journalist – which wasn’t exactly sky high to begin with.

PS Didn’t mean to go off on you personally, Ben. I just have some strong feelings on this issue.

I've committed to tweeting about the Cubs for the rest of the season. (Does that sound as ridiculous as I think it does?) Anyway, if you're on Twitter, you can follow me here.

by dat cubfan daver on Aug 21, 2009 9:53 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

I follow you Dave

And I agree with most of what you are saying.

Personally, I think Milton is absolutely more emotional and perhaps sensitive than the average major league ballplayer. But I wouldn’t call him "thin-skinned." I’d call him a human being – and an honest one at that.

I guess I always thought that being more emotional and sensitive was the definition of thin-skinned. I don’t mean it to be a slam, just a certain disposition some people have.

I haz comedy show on Fridays. Come out and support a fellow Cubs fan? If you do, I'll see what I can do about Aaron Miles: Hot Beans Delivers

by digitalbenjamin on Aug 21, 2009 10:17 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Doesn't bother me!

"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks

by dtpollitt on Aug 21, 2009 10:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

So nothing Bradley has done in the last two months has changed your low opinion of him?

I've committed to tweeting about the Cubs for the rest of the season. (Does that sound as ridiculous as I think it does?) Anyway, if you're on Twitter, you can follow me here.

by dat cubfan daver on Aug 21, 2009 11:55 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

dtpollitt's opinion of Bradley never had anything to do with Bradley's on field performance

Not sure why that would be a factor now.

by Wreckard on Aug 21, 2009 12:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thank you for speaking for me.

Anything else I would like to add?

"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks

by dtpollitt on Aug 22, 2009 3:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The season's more than two months, isn't it?

"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks

by dtpollitt on Aug 22, 2009 3:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Of course it is.

But no player is utterly consistent over the course of a season.

I've committed to tweeting about the Cubs for the rest of the season. (Does that sound as ridiculous as I think it does?) Anyway, if you're on Twitter, you can follow me here.

by dat cubfan daver on Aug 22, 2009 9:23 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

agreed

It’s ridiculous that Bradley makes this list and Hawkins doesn’t. What about Mike Remlinger? What about re-signing Glendon Rusch for two years? Hell, I’d say Jacque Jones was a worse signing than Bradley at this point.

by elgato on Aug 21, 2009 12:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I hope he doesn't

Not that Wittenmyer doesn’t deserve it, but Bradley would get crucified again by the rest of the media and Gordo would get portrayed as a poor victim.

No good would come out of Bradley confronting Wittenmyer

by Josh77 on Aug 21, 2009 1:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, that's true.

I’m in no way advocating physical violence here – just a verbal “WTF is your problem?” confrontation. But even that would probably cause more harm than good.

I've committed to tweeting about the Cubs for the rest of the season. (Does that sound as ridiculous as I think it does?) Anyway, if you're on Twitter, you can follow me here.

by dat cubfan daver on Aug 21, 2009 3:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

And people continue to insist there's no media bias against Bradley

He’s been one of the hottest Cubs hitters for almost 2 months now, putting him on pace to be worth pretty close to what we’re paying him this season. None of his “incidents” have really been all that bad, and at any rate they’re all well in the past at this point.

Yet here’s an article ranking him as a worse free agent signing than Latroy Hawkins, Jacques Jones, Jeromy Burnitz, Shawn Estes, or John Mabry.

Either Gordon has a short memory, or he has something else on his mind here.

by Wreckard on Aug 21, 2009 9:23 AM CDT reply actions 2 recs

if you read the beginning of the article...

he explains why Latroy isn’t on the list. I think you can make a pretty good argument for Jones being on it though…

I haz comedy show on Fridays. Come out and support a fellow Cubs fan? If you do, I'll see what I can do about Aaron Miles: Hot Beans Delivers

by digitalbenjamin on Aug 21, 2009 9:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ah, yeah. I had skipped right to the list.

Though I’m not sure why Latroy gets a free pass for being good half the time he was here, when Bradley doesn’t.

by Wreckard on Aug 21, 2009 9:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

exactly

its like giving a reporter a pass for being negative always (KAPLAN) and getting all over BLou for being negative.

baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out

by Cubbie-Tim on Aug 21, 2009 9:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

LaTroy gets a free pass....

… because his failures were, in part, due to his manager using him in a role he was not equipped for.

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al on Aug 21, 2009 10:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Either way it's a stretch.

Latroy had bonuses in his contract based on him becoming closer. Those never would have been put in there if Hawkins and Hendry knew he was completely ill-equipped for that role.

by Wreckard on Aug 21, 2009 10:19 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

and same excuse could be made for MB then

he was not equpiied to play 130 games, so he should get a pass for playing too many in the field, right?

baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out

by Cubbie-Tim on Aug 21, 2009 10:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Both of them should have known he was ill-equipped for the role...

… based on his year as closer in Minnesota.

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al on Aug 21, 2009 1:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

that's crap

He doesn’t deserve the pass. And talk about thin-skinned!

by elgato on Aug 21, 2009 12:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Completely agreed and Rec'd.

I've committed to tweeting about the Cubs for the rest of the season. (Does that sound as ridiculous as I think it does?) Anyway, if you're on Twitter, you can follow me here.

by dat cubfan daver on Aug 21, 2009 9:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Burnitz?

He wasn’t that bad.

by elgato on Aug 21, 2009 12:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Either is Bradley

But looking back, it looks like Burnitz, as mediocre as he was, provided slightly more value than he cost.

by Wreckard on Aug 21, 2009 12:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wow

This is a really bad analysis of the best and worst free agents this decade.

Randy Wells - You continue to astound me.

by DGU on Aug 21, 2009 9:32 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Yours was much better.

by Wreckard on Aug 21, 2009 9:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting.

I don’t know if Bradley should be #2, I think Mel Rojas, LaTroy Hawkins, Matt Stairs, Rondell White, Wade MIllar, Alan Benes to name a few whi IMO were worse signings.

The best, I cannot argue too much about.

I wonder at times if Hendry would be better off NOT signing a free agent, and ONLY working with trades. He seems to do well in that area more often than he does well with free agency.

baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out

by Cubbie-Tim on Aug 21, 2009 9:56 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Rpjas wasnt this decade

BRAIN FART!

baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out

by Cubbie-Tim on Aug 21, 2009 9:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

neither was Rojas!

I haz comedy show on Fridays. Come out and support a fellow Cubs fan? If you do, I'll see what I can do about Aaron Miles: Hot Beans Delivers

by digitalbenjamin on Aug 21, 2009 10:17 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

haha

baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out

by Cubbie-Tim on Aug 21, 2009 10:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Matt Stairs had a good year as a Cub.

I could think of other years that he could have been useful. They should have kept him after 2001.

Others you mention:

Rojas wasn’t this decade.

White got hurt.

Miller and Benes weren’t bigtime free agents — they were signed, played a handful of games and then left, with little harm done.

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al on Aug 21, 2009 10:11 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rojas (or Rpjas) I fixed before the reply

White, hurt or not was not a better signing.

Miller and Benes weren’t bigtime free agents — they were signed, played a handful of games and then left, with little harm done.

That would eliminate Neifi and MIles, since they were not big time FA signings

If we look for an excuse for one, we could then look for excuses for everyone. Seems like we should either look or accept, not pick and choose

baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out

by Cubbie-Tim on Aug 21, 2009 10:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rondell White's injury history even at that point in his career made Milton Bradley look like Cal Ripken

by Wreckard on Aug 21, 2009 11:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

white

didn’t we pick him up in a trade?

by FloridaCubsFan on Aug 21, 2009 10:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, he was traded for Scott Downs

by Wreckard on Aug 21, 2009 11:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I know everybody hates him (half the time)....

but Soriano, while over-paid, has helped us more than he has hurt us. I think Bradley is coming around. Aaron Miles, on the over hand, is horrible.

"Cubs Win!" "Yes, Sir!" - Pat and Ron, June 12, 2008, Walk off HBP, bottom of the 11th
#8719 on the Cubs Season Ticket waiting list.

by Charlemagne on Aug 21, 2009 10:00 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

helped us more than he has hurt us?

Really? After last year’s postseason and his struggles post April? You’re wrong.

by elgato on Aug 21, 2009 12:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

What about the two years prior...

Lets not forget the Soriano of 2007 and 2008 who led the cubs in HR and Slugging and third and second in OPS+ respectively.

by Chodes Jr on Aug 21, 2009 12:51 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

he hurt us ...

because he can only play one position, limiting what we can do with the rest of the team. He’s hurt us because of his ridiculous contract, which has blocked us from signing better supporting pieces.

He’s hurt us in these ways from the start. Now, he can’t hit, he still can’t field and he’s got an albatross of a contract.

by elgato on Aug 21, 2009 2:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

he can only play one position, limiting what we can do with the rest of the team. He’s hurt us because of his ridiculous contract, which has blocked us from signing better supporting pieces.

You could say these same things about Lee, Ramirez, or Zambrano. All have high price tags, which contributed to the payroll crunch this off-season. All can selfishly only play one position, blocking the Cubs from filling those positions with ~~Jake Fox~~ other players.

by Wreckard on Aug 21, 2009 2:29 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

last years post season?

if you are going to blame him for last years post season, you also have to blame Ramirez, Lee, DeRosa and just about anyone else on the team.

"Cubs Win!" "Yes, Sir!" - Pat and Ron, June 12, 2008, Walk off HBP, bottom of the 11th
#8719 on the Cubs Season Ticket waiting list.

by Charlemagne on Aug 21, 2009 3:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

actually dlee went 6-11 in the postseason last year

by jesus christos on Aug 21, 2009 4:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I stand corrected

but my point remains

"Cubs Win!" "Yes, Sir!" - Pat and Ron, June 12, 2008, Walk off HBP, bottom of the 11th
#8719 on the Cubs Season Ticket waiting list.

by Charlemagne on Aug 21, 2009 6:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dempster as the best?

Give me a break. The guy was an average to slightly below average closer for three years, and had a career year starting (except for crapping his pants in the playoffs). Do you really think he’ll come close to his 2008 numbers? I sure don’t think so.

His contract now is just crazy, but so is Soriano’s, Zambrano’s, Bradley’s, and Fukudome’s (to a lesser extent).

by cubfanwill on Aug 21, 2009 12:20 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

We're not talking about THIS contract.

We’re talking about the production he gave as a free agent from 2004-2008, which was outstanding for the dollars.

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al on Aug 21, 2009 1:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Al, I respectfully disagree with you...

Dempster did close to nothing in 2004, and from 2005-2007 he was an average at best closer. 2008 was a classic contract year that essentially hurt the Cubs because that caused his stock to soar threw the roof. Plus, I’d rather forget his pathetic playoff start.

by cubfanwill on Aug 22, 2009 10:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jeromy Burnitz

none of us have mentioned this signing

baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out

by Cubbie-Tim on Aug 21, 2009 12:37 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

what was so wrong with that signing?

It was for one year, he had a good first half. No big deal.

by elgato on Aug 21, 2009 12:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

he was a likable guy

but not so much on the field, his career was on the last leg.

Does Dusty Baker count as a FA signing?

baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out

by Cubbie-Tim on Aug 21, 2009 12:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Was ol' High Socks really that bad?

He was just a stopgap after Sosa left, no? Gave us 24 home runs and a .757 OPS for the season. Coulda done better, coulda done worse. I always kinda liked him.

I've committed to tweeting about the Cubs for the rest of the season. (Does that sound as ridiculous as I think it does?) Anyway, if you're on Twitter, you can follow me here.

by dat cubfan daver on Aug 21, 2009 12:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs