Lyle Overbay
by cubsfan1 on Nov 29, 2010 6:38 AM CST
Email
PrintOn the 24th of this month the Blue Jays declined to offer Lyle Overbay salary arbitration. This in my opinion should be the Cubs number 1 option for 1B. Coming off a year in which he struggled .243/.329/.433 and making 7.9M in 2010 the Cubs may be able to get him for a 1 or 2 year deal in the range of 5-6M per.
Now I know he's not the sexy prototypical power hitting 1B but he has some nice skills that would fit nicely into the Cubs line up. He hits lefty, draws walks, double machine, who plays a solid 1B. A career .274 hitter w/ .358 OBP. He did hit 20 hr last year and should be good for 15-20 in Wrigley. A reasonable expectation of .270/.360/450 15 hr 35 2b would make him a really nice value.
Nice little story by our friends over at fangraphs.com on him:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/lyle-overbay-graphs/
Like I said he's not sexy but he is a pretty consistent 2 WAR player who could be had at a very reasonable price. I think he fits into what the Cubs need to be doing for next year in not adding anymore long term contracts and not trading any prospects while providing a player who could be a nice regular who would give us a chance to compete in 2011.
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.
194 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Why would you waste that kind of money on a middling free agent?
I’d rather roll the dice with Chris Davis than Overbay, who has never been anything special.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Al, you keep saying that.
Are you really proposing that the Cubs head into the season with Chris Davis slotted at 1st?
I’m fine with trying to acquire Davis to see if he can develop but the Cubs need a fallback. Berkman, LaRoche or Overbay could be that fallback on a 1 year deal.
There is no way that the Cubs should head into the season with Davis as their only 1st base option. If they do, they could very well be looking for a trade or signing Carlos Delgado by the end of April when Davis is sub-.200 and striking out 40% of the time. .
John Grabow: $4.8 million in 2011.
You forget that Davis is cheap and that is most important for the Cubs.
They have already said they are not spending money this year.
I say Davis fits perfectly!
He can’t hit, strikes out more than Soriano, and is cheap!
Unlike Micah Hoffpauir....
…. Davis is an actual prospect. The only one I see as possibly better on a one-year deal would be LaRoche.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Didn't the D-Backs offer LaRoche arbitration?
And doesn’t that mean he’s the only 1B option (among those we’re considering) that would cost the Cubs draft picks?
Prospect, yes
but just as likely to hit .200. I would take Berkman and Overbay as insurance in case Davis continues his likely trend and struggles to hit .200.
John Grabow: $4.8 million in 2011.
OR save that $6 million since the team clearly has no interest in winning this season
and hope that the team’s lack of interest in competing isn’t a long term thing.
"Oh Crap"
-Famous Last Words by General George Custer
by BoVandy on Nov 29, 2010 2:35 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Waste?
why is overbay a waste and laroche is not? overbay works counts and is a solid bat who hits LH. if we could get overbay for 5-6 mil he’ll easily justify that in production. not trying to be a jerk here Al but do you watch much baseball outside of the cubs? i’ve watched davis play and his offensive approach is AWFULL. that’s the last thing we need is another boom or bust bat. i’m not sure why the obsession w/ AAAA hitters like davis and kila. not to mention we were horrible defensively w/ lee @ 1b i can only imagine how much worse it would be w/ davis.
now taking a flyer on davis for say wellington i’d be all for but to put our 1b slot on just davis is a bit irresponsible. overbay is not sexy but he wont cost us a pick and is a safe play and add in the fact a change of scenery may be just what the guy needs at a reasonable price
http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chicago-cubs-wrigley-bound/
Overbay was a 1.5 WAR player last year.
He seems to have a “ceiling”, as it were, of a 2.5 WAR player, which, as your article notes, isn’t all that great for a 1B.
And a sizeable portion of his WAR is based on UZR defense – he’s 20th among active players in defensive WAR. I don’t think anyone’s nuts about paying aging 1B for their past defensive prowess.
He was a useful part for a while. Now he’s a 34 year old who appears to be in decline.
I guess I just don’t see the point.
I just don’t see what he brings to the table, either in terms of hope for improvement or hope for a late-career resurgence.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
I'd throw Overbay in with Berkman and LaRoche.
Sign one of them for a one year deal.
John Grabow: $4.8 million in 2011.
The Cubs are not going to spend money this year.....
We are the Royals.
We have a small market owner trying to run a big market team.
Can you imagine the press in NY if he bought the Yankees and tried to do this stuff?
by TJ11 on Nov 29, 2010 8:53 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
It's called Debt
And the Cubs have a lot of it now. According to Forbes annual reports, the Cubs went from 0% debt/value in 2009 to 80% in 2010. The Ricketts have a lot of debt to pay off for purchasing the Cubs.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 29, 2010 10:26 AM CST up reply actions
I have no issues with a 2 year rebuilding program
And I don’t think there’s any value to spend multi-millions on this team, which I don’t think is reclaimable. In the end, it’s still a business. Even looking at it only from a financial perspective, the best thing for the Ricketts family would be a WS Championship and I have no doubt that they understand that.
A WS Championship will take some time based on where the team is right now and it will take smart moves to get there. I have not yet seen any indications from the Ricketts family that they are not serious about the long health and viability from a finacial and baseball perspective for the Cubs.
by jerry morales rules on Nov 29, 2010 10:36 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I agree
And I don’t think the Cubs/Ricketts have strayed from that goal. They have stated a desire to get a younger roster. Which should help keep the payroll lower and could help them pay off that debt.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 29, 2010 11:00 AM CST up reply actions
Cheap is not always bad
Ask the SF Giants about signing Huff for $3M for 2010.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 29, 2010 3:25 PM CST up reply actions
If I thought the Ricketts
would “save” any money not spent on real players and use it in 2012/2013, I’d agree they shouldn’t spend on a stopgap.
But:
1. It’s not my money
2. I don’t trust Ricketts to reinvest the money in better players later (I think he goes by the “a penny saved is a penny not spent” mantra)
3. If signing a stopgap gets us 1 or 2 extra wins that will entertain me, then I want that.
If Ricketts was truly going to save that money and use it for an incrementally larger payroll in 2012/2013, then I’d say ditch Laroche/Overbay/Pena/Berkman, etc, and put Colvin at first.
DEJESUS!!!
by tomas21 on Nov 29, 2010 9:29 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
My mistake.
I thought $130+ million was a lot of money. Personally I’m glad Hendry isn’t giving any more long contracts to this season’s free agents. Throwing money at free agents has gotten the Cubs exactly what? You can have Jon Garland for 2 years and $16 million.
John Grabow: $4.8 million in 2011.
Well, when the Marlins
are more creative than the Cubs, I think there should be some concern. They sign Vasquez for 7M, they trade Maybin who has been a bust for two relievers, Mujica, 26 years old, with a WHIP of .093 and 6 walks in 72 innings, 24 year old Ryan Webb with a 2.90 ERA, get John Buck, and trade Uggla and get two pieces back that will fit for the Marlins.
Marlins have a 2010 payroll of 48.8 M with a estimated payroll around 70M for this coming year. Trust me, I can’t stand the team, but 2 WS titles, and a front office that knows what the hell they are doing.
Meanwhile, the Cubs at 130M are acting like they are the Pirates. We can tout the 130M and all the NTC, long term deals, etc…., well that was the past. The new man in charge gives no indication of adding only subtracting, and that appears to be in the draft and payroll.
I hear Chris Davis and Lyle Overbay and other scrap heap parts, It only brings me to think of another wonderful 76-86 type year on the North Side.
by Grockcubs on Nov 29, 2010 10:05 AM CST up reply actions 2 recs
The Marlins have been more creative than the Cubs for well over a decade now.
Why start the concern now?
by jerry morales rules on Nov 29, 2010 10:28 AM CST up reply actions
can't we just CONTINUE the concern
while Al and others try to claim that Hendry is a competent GM
"Oh Crap"
-Famous Last Words by General George Custer
Hendry has made mistakes.
That’s very clear. However, on balance he’s done a decent job, especially with trades. (The Juan Pierre fiasco notwithstanding.)
I think he’s on a fairly short leash right now. Let’s see what happens this offseason before we just routinely slam him again.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I disagree that he's done a
decent job. The GMs job isn’t to make trades, it’s to create a contending big-league team, a productive farm system, and to have long-term vision.
We haven’t won a playoff game in 7 years (probably 8 after next season), the farm system has been mostly unproductive until Wilkens made some picks, and the team has played worse 2 seasons runnning, with 2011 looking potentiall worse than 2010 (subtracted Lily and Lee, and we probably won’t add an impact player).
That’s not “decent” by my standards. It’s terrible. He has spent over a billion dollars in his tenure, and has nothing to show for it.
DEJESUS!!!
by tomas21 on Nov 29, 2010 9:24 PM CST up reply actions 2 recs
Agreed
I don’t blame the Ricketts for not allowing Hendry to go hog wild and sign a bunch of free agents we’ll be complaining about in a few years. I don’t like that they’re keeping him around, but I’d rather they only allow him to sink 2011 instead of 2011 and beyond.
Thanks for making my point
It isn’t an issue of spending money. The Cubs have spent a lot and what do they have to show for it? Spending smartly is a different story. I’ve said all along that Hendry should be long gone. He is part architect of this disaster.
What I won’t agree with is that the Cubs are now the Royals and that somehow the Ricketts are now the worst owners in the world because they aren’t throwing more money at this mess. More money won’t fix this. They may be blind in keeping Hendry but I’m giving them another year. I don’t see anything that would fix this team in 2011. Yes it is a 76-86 win season next year. I’m hoping for some positive signs for the future though.
John Grabow: $4.8 million in 2011.
Well...
if you all want to see management play the “empty pockets” card, then, just re-sign Nady and keep things the way they were the last 6 weeks of last season. Maybe the new manager was all this team needed. 34-23 (or something like that) was right at the top of the leagues best for that period of time. Why fix it, if it isn’t broke? Don’t spend ANY money on FAs. Roll the dice and see where you are at the trade deadline and take it from there. Stay close and THEN they can go get what they need. Overbay, LaRoche, Pena and Berkman are garbage. Why waste any cash on them at all? If Dunn isn’t gonna be signed, then stand pat. We’ll get ’em in ’12 or ’13 or ’14 or…..
"I don't care who the manager is OR who they sign in the off-season...I just want a frickin' World Series winner" - Easy Ed
I really
wanted Vasquez on the Cubs. He took 7M from the Marlins. He would of been a perfect fit. I guess the Cubs will wait until January to see how the market is shaped and what is left under the tree.
I hope Ricketts proves me wrong. But looking at the Bradley, Dome, Z, Demp, Grabow, Shark and Soriano deals must keep him up at night. So I guess in some ways he is cautious with Jimbo and the checkbook.
We seem to be forgetting
that Vasquez specificaly stated that he preffered to be on the east coast near his home in Puerto Rico. We dont know if the cubs did/didnt make an offer. He may have taken less, but him wanting to be close to home is a very logical explanation. Fact is, we DO need to sign a low cost starter while Cashner learns how to start in AAA for a year.
One year guarnteed
at 5M. 3M more for more incentives this year and reaching those incentives the club has a option for 8M in 2012.
I believe the club has the option for 2012 now
and reaching 190 innings makes it guaranteed.
John Grabow: $4.8 million in 2011.
I'm not sure who I want from the Overbay-LaRoche-Pena-Berkman grab bag.
I’m kind of in the camp with rlpete that the Cubs shouldn’t bet everything on Chris Davis, though I think he’s an intriguing prospect (especially if the Cubs can get him for one of their catching prospects).
It’s possible the Cubs will end up with whoever is left standing in a month or two. Based on what’s out there … that’s not a terrible approach. The Cubs won’t spend on Dunn — I read this weekend that he’ll get V-Mart money, which is just ridiculous. With that in mind, I don’t want the Cubs to give anything more than a 1-year deal with an option for any of the remaining second-tier guys.
Is that being cheap? Probably. But I’d rather be cheap in this instance than overspend on the best of the second tier 00 specially considering the amount of money coming off the books after 2011, the big-name first basemen who will be available next offseason.
by elgato on Nov 29, 2010 9:18 AM CST reply actions 1 recs
Pena is the one I don't want
A number 5 hitter that could struggle to hit over .200? Yes he’ll hit HR’s but that is all. Ignoring salary demands, I think I would prefer Berkman, Overbay, LaRoche and Pena in that order. I’d be surprised if the Cubs don’t end up with one of them.
John Grabow: $4.8 million in 2011.
The one major upside to Overbay...
…is he’s considered a good defensive first baseman. Combine that with his relatively stable offensive output and I’d agree that he may be the most sensible one-year stop-gapper from a balance perspective.
Contributing Editor, SB Nation Chicago. Please follow us on Twitter!
One other thing to consider with Overbay is that the suffered a hand/wrist injury during the 2008-09 season, a likely reason why his numbers were affected this year. What gets lost in his 2009-10 stat line of .243/.329/.433 is that he was hitting in the neighbourhood of .180 for most of the first half of the season.
Agreed, he may be the best
of the leftovers. Sometimes that’s not a bad thing.
by SouthWabashSoul on Nov 29, 2010 3:55 PM CST reply actions
my 1B preferences
assuming cost is relatively similar (and it should be)
1. Lance Berkman
2. Adam LaRoche
3. Carlos Pena
4. Chris Davis
5. Lyle Overbay
If you’re in the Cubs situation, and you’re a 75 win team with little payroll/roster flexibility you need to take chances on upside. In my opinion this list is in the order of the highest upside for just next year. Berkman posted a .900+ OPS just 1 year ago and was an elite hitter throughout his career. He’s had one bad season, in which he still posted a wRC+ of 117. He would be far and away my target. I’d spend the most money on him and be willing to go to 1 yr, 8-10 million
After that I’d offer Pena and LaRoche identical one year deals for around $6-7 million and see if one signs. If not, I’d try to acquire Davis and roll from there. If so, I’d try to get a RH platoon option like Nady to keep on the roster to serve as an insurance option for Davis and a potential platoon partner even if he does work out.
Overbay would be a last resort for me. He does provide a higher floor than some of the others, but the Cubs don’t need a guy that is rather reliably average. They need someone with high upside, they need to try to catch some lightening in a bottle and Overbay has the least chance of being that.
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Nov 29, 2010 5:42 PM CST reply actions
Upside is what I've been thinking about too.
For us to compete in 2011, alot of things need to click. Going with a high upside first basemen is the way to go. I really don’t see what Lyle Overbay brings that Carlos Pena doesn’t, other than a slightly cheaper price tag. If were gonna sign a one year stopgap, its much more sensible to gamble on the higher upside guys coming off down years, such as Berkman or Pena
Of those five, if I had to pick one...
… it would be LaRoche.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Berkman to me is a no brainer out of this bunch
Health is the big issue. To me if gets 500 AB’s he would put of solid numbers.
Makes sense.
I may have overstated my position a little bit above. I think Overbay would be a sensible, conservative pick — mainly because of the likelihood that he’d field his position well. Berkman’s potential to put up big numbers is definitely there — he’ll essentially be playing to extend his career next season. And LaRoche and Pena are basically either/or’s for me: Not opposed to them but wouldn’t be overly excited. And I’d still like to see a Chris Davis trade just to keep open the possibility of having a young, power-producing first baseman on the team.
Contributing Editor, SB Nation Chicago. Please follow us on Twitter!
i like berkman
but if he’s going to get $8-10 million i’d just as soon spend the money on adam dunn.
by circuitclout on Nov 30, 2010 10:13 AM CST up reply actions
But Dunn might command that kind of money for three or four years.
Berkman is probably one and done.
We need to keep First Base open
For Bryan LaHair post 2011?
" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "
I'm not necessarily advocating that move.
I’m just saying that there is an advantage, despite the price tag, of a 1-year deal.
I would understand everyone's need for a 1 year deal more if...
We had ANYONE in the system with a legitimate big bat. However we are looking for stopgaps THIS YEAR so we can LOOK FOR STOPGAPS NEXT YEAR?
Why not pay the cost for an Adam Dunn, and bring in a legitimate offensive force to bridge the offensive production gap for 3 years?
" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "
No, we're looking at stopgaps this year...
…to potentially bid on one of The Big Three next year. Or maybe trade for a like Chris Davis, see what he can do this year and hope he develops into a viable option for next year.
Contributing Editor, SB Nation Chicago. Please follow us on Twitter!
Dunn
Dunn is gonna get more then 3 years you can count on it.
http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chicago-cubs-wrigley-bound/
RE:
It’s a weak FA class especially on the hitting side and someone will overreact and give him close to what he wants. This obviously is just my opinion but I’d wager a couple dollars on it.
http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chicago-cubs-wrigley-bound/
I think GM's are in a waiting mood.
We’ll see.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
i'm not sure i follow the logic
of paying $10 million on a one year deal to keep 1B open so you can spend $20 million on someone else a year from now.
to extract value from berkman he would need to rebound to a .900+ OPS hitter and the cubs would need to either have a best-case scenario season from mulitple players and find themselves in contention or be in a position to trade berkman or have him play his way into type A status.
by circuitclout on Nov 30, 2010 11:30 AM CST up reply actions
Two reasons:
There are better first baseman available next year and the Cubs will have more money to spend next year.
FWIW, I wouldn’t spend $10 million on Berkman. Maybe $8 million.
but they'd have even more to spend
if they didn’t drop $8-10 million on berkman this year.
by circuitclout on Nov 30, 2010 11:39 AM CST up reply actions
That's true.
But then we might really have Bryan LaHair at first. I’d like the Cubs to try to compete in 2011, rather than building a warchest for 2012.
as stopgaps go
i actually kinda like the idea of a lahair/baker platoon at 1B.
by circuitclout on Nov 30, 2010 11:46 AM CST up reply actions
I don't.
LaHair is the new Hoffpauir.
If that’s the way to go, go with Chris Davis.
Otherwise, I’d say Adam LaRoche is your best choice.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I said...
… IF you want a young guy, go with the one with upside. That makes sense, right? LaHair has no upside.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I didn't really get your meaning there.
I agree with you that Davis is a better bet than LaHair. But I don’t truly know that much about either player.
if lahair = hoffpauir
then chris davis must be the new mike jacobs, or maybe a LH version of ryan sheely.
by circuitclout on Nov 30, 2010 12:10 PM CST up reply actions
Does it bother anyone else?
That we had a 145 Million dollar payroll to start last year. Yet we are kicking around dreck names like these 12 months later?
" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "
Except this is a blog
the Cubs will not start the season with someone like LaHair at 1st base. The Cubs will likely sign one of these mid-range 1st basemen.
Still not overly exciting but welcome to the Cubs 2011.
John Grabow: $4.8 million in 2011.
I just don't understand how they can cry poverty at this point
Even trimming payroll back to 135 should give them more than enough money to actually improve? Now we are looking at a payroll that no longer includes
D Lee
Ted Lilly
The Riot
X Nady
Yet to this point, all the rumblings we have heard are about us dumpster diving?
" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "
Did you read Al's post on the payroll situation?
(Seriously asking.)
Contributing Editor, SB Nation Chicago. Please follow us on Twitter!
Not sure if I did or not?
I’ve read many posts on the subject throughout the blogsphere though.
With Arb. raises we have about 115 committed to the 2011 Payroll. Staying at 135 or above still gives us 20 Million-ish to sign players.
" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "
You can read Al's post...
…here. It estimates the available funds at less than $15 million. I know there have been other blogposts on the topic as well. It’s a tough figure to nail down because we don’t know exactly how ownership has decided to allocate every dollar and we don’t know how much more the raises owed to various players will cost.
Contributing Editor, SB Nation Chicago. Please follow us on Twitter!
I'd still throw in James Loney to that group,
and would put him ahead of Overbay and probably Davis. His upside is higher than all of them with maybe the exception of Berkman, who could revert to his old form.
"You've got to get your damn shirts rolled up and go out and kick somebody's ass. That's what you've got to do. Period." -- Lou Piniella
you know I played a little first base in high school and softball since
i am closing in on 2 years without a cigarette (maybe i am a little faster than i once was?) and you wont get any cheaper than me. I can promise to give it my all, even if I am hitting sub .150
Chronologically inept since 2060
"I could be writing this crap!" -- Crow T. Robot
Me: Q: I can run but not walk. Wherever I go, thought follows close behind. What am I?
Wrigster A: Theriot
Nope...
…you seem to have “old player skills”. Pass. Besides, there’s NO sabermetric numbers we can judge you on. How we suppose to know how good or bad you are without the good ole sabermetrics?
"I don't care who the manager is OR who they sign in the off-season...I just want a frickin' World Series winner" - Easy Ed
well, without the numbers you cannot prove me to be a bad sign :=)
i do not live and die by sabermetrics, but i do respect them and believe that they are a good base to build on
Chronologically inept since 2060
"I could be writing this crap!" -- Crow T. Robot
Me: Q: I can run but not walk. Wherever I go, thought follows close behind. What am I?
Wrigster A: Theriot
Regarding first base; i suggest they try Colvin, especially if they are unable to move KF. It seems to me everytime the Cubs appear to have a need they look outside the organization first. Right now they need to get younger and better and need first and foremost to look inward. The five Cs all looked good last year; keep the youth movement going; when they are ready to contend, then go for that last piece or pieces to put them over the top. Right now they are not at that spot. I want to see Archer up with the Cubs next year. Its also time to see if Jeff S has benefited from his minors stint. He looked much improved last Sept. Keep it up Rick Wilkin. Go Cubs; younger is better.
Neal
Wait, who are the Five C's?
Colvin, Castro, Cashner…?
Contributing Editor, SB Nation Chicago. Please follow us on Twitter!
Good guesses!
You’re probably right.
Contributing Editor, SB Nation Chicago. Please follow us on Twitter!
If so, only one (Castro)
looks like a sure fire starter next season.
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Dec 1, 2010 7:40 AM CST up reply actions
I think you have to go Berkman here
Alot of good cases for these other guys, but I can already imagine the future fanshots gaggling on about how many K’s this team will rack up. La Roche and Pena will kill you here. The key to next year is upside and I believe Berkman is the best available option for that reason. He won’t kill you at first and he’s a major threat in the lineup when he is on his game. Will he be on his game in 2011? Who the hell knows….but I cannot begin to fathom why some people are advocating for a 1st baseman that struggled to hit .200 over the course of a season. People….batting for .200 is NOT OK and should be taken as a red flag. At the end of the day, this team most likely will not be sniffing the playoffs so whoever is manning 1st next year shouldn’t make too much of a difference.
And also...
Why hasn’t Dome been traded yet? He has little to no value to this team in 2011 so get what you can for him and call it finished. Paying 60% of his contract is more efficient than paying 100%. This organization is in thrifty mode right now, might as swing a deal while he has some value.
Apparently, because no one is willing to pay much of anything for him.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
You don't know that.
Again, just because someone hasn’t been traded yet doesn’t mean a deal isn’t being worked on. Or might not happen at the winter meetings.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
While I'd generally say that it's too early to judge the Cubs' entire offseason ...
we know that Hendry has been trying to trade Kosuke since at least last spring. It’s possible that another team will make other moves opening a spot for Kosuke, but we know that right now, no other team HAS BEEN willing to pay much of anything for Kosuke.
I won’t go on another Kosuke rant. But the simple fact is that he’s overpaid for what he provides, making him very difficult to trade. And the fact that Hendry has several of these contracts to his credit — the worst of which being Bradley, Kosuke, Soriano and (until August) Z — I can’t stick by your description of Hendry as a ‘decent’ GM, Al.
Decent GMs don’t spend back-to-back offseasons dumping bad contracts. I know you’re going to say that we wouldn’t be complaining had the Cubs won it all in 2007 or 2008. But keep in mind that two of the three bad contracts had little to do with the playoff runs. The Cubs would have won the Central without Kosuke in 2008, and Bradley didn’t even arrive until 2009.
The Cubs would have won the Central without Kosuke in 2008
I wonder about that. Some of those players credited Kosuke’s approach with helping them take more pitches and draw more walks. The 2008 Cubs nearly broke the team record for walks in a season. Since then, that has declined.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
You and I have talked about the Kosuke-made-the-Cubs-more-patient idea.
It was a position espoused by Bob Brenly in 2008 and mentioned in an off-hand way by Ryan Theriot to Bruce Miles. Other than that, I’ve seen very few comments from Cubs to support this idea — and I wonder why the team got less patient in subsequent seasons while Kosuke remained on the roster. If he really had such an effect on the team’s patience, why did it go away?
The Cubs did get more patient for one season. But without diving too deep into the numbers, I’d guess the Cubs who played center, right and catcher in 2008 were more patient generally than the Cubs who played those positions in 2007 — and that they would have been regardless of Kosuke’s “effect” on others. Hell, Derrek Lee’s OBP actually dropped in 2008 compared with 2007, so the effect wasn’t across the board.
I believe Kosuke’s “effect” on the Cubs’ overall patience is something many BCBers use to ease the pain of a very poor signing (in line with the impossible-to-quantify effect that Kosuke supposedly had to make the Cubs more popular in Japan). Maybe there’s something to it, but not much — and certainly not enough to say that Kosuke’s presence caused the Cubs to be 7.5 games better than Milwaukee that season.
No, of course I wouldn't say...
… that Kosuke alone caused the Cubs to be 7.5 games better than Milwaukee. That’s just silly.
However, there is no doubt he contributed to the division title. He has averaged 2.0 WAR over his three years as a Cub — hardly a waste. Yes, it was too much money.
But you have what borders on an irrational dislike of him. He’s still a useful player and did get better at the end of last season — perhaps not coincidentally, after Lou Piniella left.
I’d still like to see him dealt, IF the Cubs can get a decent return and not have to eat too much money. Otherwise, I think we’re stuck with him.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I think it's a perfectly rational dislike, thank you very much.
I didn’t say Kosuke didn’t contribute to the division title. I’m saying the Cubs almost certainly would have won the division without him.
Anyway, I don’t really like YOU using the irrational label (even if you couched it with “borders on”) without addressing a good deal of my rational points. Do you have links to comments about the Kosuke effect from other Cubs? Don’t you think it’s possible that the roster moves the Cubs made before and during 2008 could have had a big effect on the team’s patience? Don’t you wonder why Kosuke’s effect only lasted one season? Why did Derrek Lee’s OBP FALL after Kosuke joined the Cubs?
I made rational points, Al. I pretty much share your position on what to do with Kosuke now, as long as keeping him doesn’t block Tyler Colvin. That said, I don’t think we should gin up the pluses in the Kosuke signing argument, do you? Hasn’t there been enough of that around here for the past three years?
At this point...
… I don’t think it’s necessary to belabor the past. It is what it is. It would be useful to trade him if the Cubs don’t have to eat more than half the contract.
If they do, they need to keep him and figure out what to do with him.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
So, you're not here to talk about the past? :)
Jokes aside, that’s fine. But lay off on the “borders on irrational” talk, eh?
OK, maybe that was unfair.
But I think your continuing criticism of Fukudome is far more than he merits.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
The defense that he gets is more than he merits.
I think it’s because his skills are en vogue in the age of Sabermetrics. That and he doesn’t make a ton of mental mistakes or act like a jerk and he plays good defense.
I’d say that most of my criticism of Kosuke is my way of deriding Hendry’s decision to pay him $48 million.
Fun! Let's have the circular argument again!
In December 2007, Fukudome was considered to be the best position player in Japan. At least two other teams were willing to pay more for him.
All of them were wrong. But given what was known at the time, it wasn’t an unreasonable decision.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Neither one of us wants to let the other have the last word, apparently.
I disagree with you, Al. I disagree very, very strongly. My position is known.
Good night and good luck.
Agree to disagree.
We do agree, I think, that Fukudome should be traded IF the return is reasonable and they don’t have to eat more than half of the deal.
Fair enough?
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I'd be happy with a quarter of the deal, depending on the return.
Otherwise, yeah.
he does know a thing or two about irrational dislikes
unless bobby scales kicked his dog.
by circuitclout on Nov 30, 2010 11:48 AM CST up reply actions
Regardless of KF's effect
It can’t be denied that the extra patience in ’98 was a big factor in the # of runs they scored that year. We need to go back to that approach. Tough outs who take pitches and get on base.
by SouthWabashSoul on Nov 30, 2010 12:49 PM CST up reply actions
It's certainly been reported as such.
Granted, there aren’t any first-hand reports directly from the mouth of Hendry, there have been multiple reports of the Cubs trying to trade Kosuke over a rather extended period of time, and of the Cubs being unwilling to send as much cash with him as would be required to move him.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
that might not be true
fukudome has value to this team in that he might be the best option to lead off (especially against RHP) and shouldn’t hurt you defensively in RF. he’s not likely to be worth $13.5 million dollars but if used effectively he could be a useful player.
by circuitclout on Nov 30, 2010 9:46 AM CST up reply actions
1 year
They are looking for a strong defensive 1B man and a 3-4 hitter. This is the ideal, right? None of these players is ideal. I think Berkman raises questions about being able to last the season. Important thing is a 1-year deal if they sign any of these free agents. I suppose Nady’s ability to stay off the DL is a question mark too. For low cost and 1 year they should still keep Nady on the list of possibilities.
Egos would get in the way of signing Lee, post-tumb surgery, to a 1-year deal. He would otherwise be one of the best choices IMO.
I question the need for a 1 year deal
We have zero bats in the pipeline to plug in at 1st next year. So we are basically looking for a 1 year fix, so we can look again for a 1 year fix next year?
No way to build a franchise
" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "
umm...
the way NOT to build a franchise is to spend on the most expensive thing (even if its not the right long-term fit) every year just to plug a hole
a one year deal provides optionality and flexibility, something the Cubs haven’t exercised in the past.
Signing someone to a one year deal at a position isn’t an admission of defeat for yrs to come at that position, its an admission that the appropriate long-term solution isn’t currently available
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Nov 30, 2010 1:32 PM CST up reply actions
It's seeming like a McCourt like ploy 2.0
Raise ticket prices while lowering the payroll. Which according to whisper reports is exactly what is going on.
I SERIOUSLY doubt we are sitting out free agency now, so we can throw 200 Million at Adrian Gonzalez in 12 Months?
More likely it will be a revisit of McFails “we really wanted (Furcal/Beltran) but had no idea the price would end up so high”
No reason a franchise with the ability to spend 145 Million on player payroll in 2010 should be looking at 115 in 2011 and south of 100 in 2012.
" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "
Have you heard or read somewhere...
…that the Ricketts intend to lower the payroll that much?
Contributing Editor, SB Nation Chicago. Please follow us on Twitter!
Not less than 100
I’m talking only about commitments at this point. But there is alot of code being floated out there.
going young
building from within
focusing on scouting
Make no mistake, those are all code for GOING CHEAP
" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "
From Bruce Levine's chat today:
I’m not sure what ownership has in mind after 2011. Ricketts is on record saying he feels the minor league system should supply the majority of players in the future. But he also said that the Cubs will probably continue to be in the upper 3-4 teams in the NL for payroll. For now they are a small market team with a $135 million payroll.
http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chicago/chat/_/id/35745
Top 3 or 4 is not cheap, Aaron.
Did Ricketts sign that top 3-4 payroll?
From my recollection he inherited every long term deal on the books.
I’ve been a defender of Ricketts from the start. Taking a wait and see attitude. However hearing things like this getting floated out there by PR sources is VERY DISCOURAGING.
Probably top 3 or 4 NL payrolls covers a huge spread. Cubs were 1st at 146 and Giants were 4th at 97.
That isn’t much of a commitment that Ricketts is making there.
" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "
It's also not what I would call 'cheap'.
But I understand what you’re saying. The couching bothers me the most — i.e. “probably in the top 3 or 4 in the NL” etc.
inherited contracts
ARE ESCALATING LIABILITIES
he can’t spend more because his liabilities are already increasing every year
the first year that stops is next year
have a LITTLE bit of perspective, just a little bit
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Nov 30, 2010 4:03 PM CST up reply actions
I guess one could think of it that way.
Or, more optimistically, one could think of it as a smarter way to build a baseball team.
Contributing Editor, SB Nation Chicago. Please follow us on Twitter!
I'm all for being smarter with youre resources
It just takes away our biggest competitive advantage if ownership decides to go cheap. Dropping even from 1st to 4th will be a huge deal on the field. Especially if the same stone aged regime is running the show.
" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "
I'm not that bothered by a lower payroll.
I’m bothered by a lower payroll with the Hendry regime. You have a point there. But I bet we’ll have a new GM at this time next year.
I'm not all that worried about the Ricketts doing that.
I think they’re smart enough to recognize what a competitive advantage the Cubs have (theoretically, at least) financially.
Contributing Editor, SB Nation Chicago. Please follow us on Twitter!
The jury is way, way out in that respect. And the early returns are discouraging.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
I'll wait until the final vote is tallied, figuratively speaking.
Contributing Editor, SB Nation Chicago. Please follow us on Twitter!
Agreed.
My fear is that while the Ricketts fully recognize their financial advantage, they view it as “we are unlikely to lose money”, rather than “we can use our $$ advantage to build winning teams”. Time will tell.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
Again, call me an optimist...
…or brainwashed or whatever…but I do believe the Ricketts are fans and I don’t see why they wouldn’t want to do everything in their power to build winning teams. The value of their investment goes up considerably when the Cubs win and whoever is behind the 20__ World Series champion Chicago Cubs will be immortalized in sports history.
Contributing Editor, SB Nation Chicago. Please follow us on Twitter!
if you haven't already
you should watch the video of joe ricketts that D98 posted in one of the other renovation threads. tom ricketts might be a fan but joe ultimately owns the cubs and joe is definitely a businessman and not a baseball fan.
by circuitclout on Dec 2, 2010 10:10 AM CST up reply actions
I think I've seen that video...
…and, yeah, the elder Ricketts does make it clear he doesn’t know the first thing about baseball. It’s disturbing but, still, I think Tom is mainly calling the shots at this point and has the power to make the right decisions. Above all, a winning baseball team is the best thing for business long-term.
Contributing Editor, SB Nation Chicago. Please follow us on Twitter!
there's an old saying
them’s got the gold makes the rules….
i don’t pretend to know for sure but you have to wonder if daddy is already getting antsy because he was promised he was buying a cash cow and not a mediocre baseball team with a hefty payroll that plays in an antiquated stadium in dire need of repair.
the ricketts did a great job of selling the story of tom as the billionaire fan that was going to make all our dreams come true. but it seems that was just a cover story. and tom is only calling the shots as long as dad is happy. it’s pretty clear that dad doesn’t care about the baseball team, he cares about the profit the baseball team was supposed to be guaranteed to make.
by circuitclout on Dec 2, 2010 11:03 AM CST up reply actions
or... those are the ways to win
the best teams in baseball are built from within
we’ve done the “no develop, splurge in FA plan”, it doesn’t work
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Nov 30, 2010 4:02 PM CST up reply actions
Every team other than Minnesota and TB disagree
Teams with financial might have the power to become and maintain competitve advantages for a long time. Boston, NYY, PHILLY, LAA stay in pennant races each and every year. They do it by being able to afford players.
" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "
they do it by being able to afford their own players
and FWIW
Phillies didn’t cross 100 million threshold until 2009
http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/philadelphia-phillies_18.html
Angels have topped 120 million ONCE
http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/los-angeles-angels-of-anaheim.html
Cubs are talking about dropping payroll to the 135 million range, that will STILL be Top 5 every year
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Nov 30, 2010 4:45 PM CST up reply actions
There was a story by Paul Sullivan speculating to it
Though obviously nothing from Ricketts.
" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "
I don't put much stock in anything he speculates.
Contributing Editor, SB Nation Chicago. Please follow us on Twitter!
you realize you're contradicting yourself right?
on one hand you’re saying we should be spending long-term dollars right now to find the 1b solution and in other posts suggesting we have plenty of money to do so
on the other hand you’re saying the scenario is McCourt 2.0
these two are opposite opinions on the spectrum and you appear to be choosing whichever drastic scenario you want to fit your suggestion of either A) signing Adam Dunn right now or B) the team is going cheap forever
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Nov 30, 2010 4:01 PM CST up reply actions
How are they seperate opinions?
I THINK THE MONEY IS THERE AND WE SHOULD TRY AND COMPETE.
Apparently Ricketts kicking the tires on a Frank McCourt-esque raise ticket prices+lower payroll=More Money in the Ricketts coffers
Its the difference between what I personally want the cubs to do as a fan. And what ownership is possibly doing.
" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "
why cant you understand
that spending this year does not equal spending forever
and similarly
not spending this year does not equal not spending ever again
why is it black or white?
why aren’t there shades of gray?
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Nov 30, 2010 4:47 PM CST up reply actions
Nobody but Ricketts knows what the Future plan is
All I’m saying is there is alot of coded “going cheap” language being spouted about. I’d feel much better if they promised to stay above a 130 payroll number going forward.
Saying the figure to be top 4 in the NL isn’t even pledging 100 million towards payroll. As a fan I think that’s unfortunate.
Can you win with a lower payroll? Sure. But it doesn’t make it any easier to do so.
" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "
you're interpreting "going cheap"
i’m interpreting “being smarter”
developing from within, having the majority of your roster built from those players within, increasing spending on scouting/development, limiting FA spending more. These are all ideas consistent with how teams have won consistently in the past.
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Nov 30, 2010 6:42 PM CST up reply actions 2 recs
I like to look to the Yankees and the
roster in the late 90s when they won a lot. Jeter, Bernie Williams, Rivera, Posado, Hernandez and Pettitte even Mendoza were home grown and developed talent that were all important parts of that team in the late 90s. They were then able to spend like crazy to compliment those pieces.
I like the idea of having a strong core of players that the Cubs drafted and developed and when that core is ready to compete you can use your financial clout and hopefully a nice full farm system to attract top players to compliment that core and put them over the top.
"We love them, We mourn for them, Unlucky boys of Red" - Morrissey
"Giggs gets past Viera, past Dixon, who comes back at him, it's a wonderful run from GIGGS!!!" - Martin Tyler
Nucks Misconduct Chief Curmudgeon, Chief Hunk and Chief Drama Queen.
by Section 312 on Nov 30, 2010 6:50 PM CST up reply actions
that's my impression
of what they’re trying to build
of course i’m taking anecdotal evidence and random soundbites to form my biased opinion of what they’re trying to do, and it happens to be more optimistic
others are doing the same thing and getting to a much more pessimistic conclusion
we won’t know who is right for years, speaking in certainties as if this is the only possible scenario is silly. There are plenty of scenarios in the middle as well
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Nov 30, 2010 7:10 PM CST up reply actions
I will admit to having an overly negative view of ownership at the moment.
I’m self-aware enough to recognize that this entire tax-siphoning plan has probably colored my view of Cubs’ ownership for the worse.
I just can’t reconcile Tom Ricketts’ stated political views with him standing at a podium asking for public funds while wearing a Cubs=JOBS button.
Or his veiled threats to move the team if the city doesn’t give him $200M to fix Wrigley, while he spends his own $200M on a new retail development conveniently located next to the new-and-improved-with-public-funds Wrigley.
I had really, really high hopes for the Ricketts ownership group, and I’m dealing with a very, very high level of cognitive dissonance at the moment. I can’t pretend not to see what we’re all seeing here, just so that I can keep a warm fuzzy feeling about their “family business.”
Almost every action they’ve taken since becoming owners, with the exception of removing the concrete from the Addison side of the building, has been a misstep. They have to give us something – anything – if they want to keep feeding us this story of how they’re each “one of us”.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
Why do we have to lower payroll to be smarter?
Is giving Jim Hendry 30 million less payroll going to make him smarter? I’m all for having a stronger ML system to to build from going forward. But let’s not pretend that we will somehow be more competitive by using less financial resources?
Why can’t be have both? Homegrown stars we can retain ALONG with free agents to fill the gaping hole at first base?
" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "
a few things
1) you don’t “have to” lower it, its just a natural result sometimes of developing more from within. The less reliance you have on FA, the less the payroll you’re likely to have. For example, Boston during its best years was at 120-130 million. Angels have eclipsed 120 million just once. Phillies didn’t eclipse 100 million until 2009, Cardinals have never eclipsed 100. Those are all successful franchises with resources. They spent big on retaining key players they developed and occasionally went to the FA market to supplement those internally developed players.
2) why assume a 30 million drop when Ricketts has indicated the drop this year would be more like 5-10 million? It seems somewhat frantic to assume such a significant drop
3) even IF it is a significant drop, the teams noted above haven’t consistently been above $120 (with the exception of the Red Sox) and they’re able to compete year in and year out and often pursue elite FA’s. They just have enough cheap internally developed players that they can tactically spend on FA (instead of just spending EVERY offseason for the shiniest object regardless of fit, i.e. the Cubs plan)
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Nov 30, 2010 7:57 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
+1 and rec'd
to pretty much everything you’ve said in this side thread. i don’t understand what is so hard to understand about what your trying to convey.
http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chicago-cubs-wrigley-bound/
If they are able to spend $145-50 each year, but limit to $120 or so, they're giving up an advantage.
Obviously, spending $145M each year doesn’t guarantee success. You have to spend it wisely, and Hendry utterly failed in doing that.
But if the team is unable to add a true impact player (i.e., a Cabrera, a Gonzalez, etc.) because they’re already at $115M and they have a self-imposed “hard cap” in order to guarantee the Ricketts make eight figures in profit each season…. well, that’s walking away from the Cubs’ biggest advantage in an inequitable system tilted in their favor.
Boston develops TONS of talent from within. And yet, they still go after true impact players when they become available.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
by D98 on Dec 1, 2010 11:09 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
But
Dunn is not a true impact player and depleting our farm system for AGON who may not resign is very counterproductive. What we are trying to say (or at least me) is there is nothing out there right now we should drop big money on trade away our MiLB depth away.
Next year may be whole new ball game in terms of FA and where our players have developed. Plus I’d much rather drop 8-12 mil on the draft and maybe some IFAs rather then give that money to Dunn watch him K 200 times, play a horrible 1B and maybe win 82 games.
Another hting about Dunn is the guy has a body that when it goes bad it’s gonna quick so maybe 2 years of good production and then 2 years of watching him fall apart.
http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chicago-cubs-wrigley-bound/
IF
we were on the cusp of winning a championship then maybe I say go after Agon. There’s always the wait till he becomes a FA next year and try and sign him w/o trading 2-3 top prospects.
http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chicago-cubs-wrigley-bound/
You make any Gonzalez trade contingent on a contract extension.
That’s kind of standard procedure these days.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
REALLY doubtful he'd agree to that though
He is certainly going to want to get market value for himself. Especially being that he will be 29 and a FA for the 1st time. Either way its going to be somewhere in the 8/160-8/180-10/200 type of range.
" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "
True
Not saying it’s impossible. I just feel confident that a 29 year old 1st time free agent. Coming off a season where he made 1/3rd of his market value. Will want to test the market and see what he can get.
Santana had already made 44 Million in ML contracts at that point. Adrian Gonzalez has made 10.
Even if we do get the extension. It probably won’t be a club friendly one.
" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "
self imposed hard cap?
this is once again getting into speculation.
So far all we’ve heard is he wants to be within the top 3-4 payrolls in the NL. He hasn’t said the 3rd or 4th, he hasn’t said anything about not spending on a player that can put a team over the top, he hasn’t said anything about a self-imposed hard cap
in fact i’d argue his actions have suggested flexible spending and dynamic budgeting. He’s said they’re shifting more resources to development/scouting for the upcoming year. Perhaps thats a long-term view of structuring payroll down OR perhaps its a way to by dynamic in the budgeting in a time when the club isn’t likely to compete?
you’re speculating on a self imposed hard cap, you’re speculating on the number they’ll get to AND you’re drawing drastic conclusions on the impacts of it.
Is it an advantage to be able to spend $145 as opposed to $120? Sure. Has it made much of a difference for the Cubs in the past? No.
The Cubs best seasons in recent years were 2003, 2004, 2007, 2008
those years their payroll was:
$79 million, $91 million, $100 million, $118 million
the worst years the Cubs had in this stretch were 2006 and 2010
payrolls those years were: $94 million, $144 million
There’s been almost no correlation over the last 20 years between wins and $ spent for the Cubs.
and generally in recent baseball history the relationship between wins and payroll isn’t linear
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Dec 1, 2010 12:34 PM CST up reply actions
I thought that was how the argument was being framed.
I mean, if there’s no self-imposed cap whatsoever, why not say “we’ll be among the highest payrolls in the league, and we’ll have the funds available to make necessary acquisitions”.
I mean, yes, everything is reading tea leaves at this point.
But my post is necessarily framed in a potential reality in which the Cubs choose to operate under a de-facto salary cap that is some level below the larger-market teams, and in fact, that is some level below what the Cubs can actually spend while staying in the black.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
I really wonder...
…whether many Cubs fans are so accustomed to seeing the team make risky/desperate financial moves that they’re crying “Cheap!” because they’re unaccustomed to seeing the organization apparently make some sound financial decisions — such as not paying millions of dollars for a manager (or pitching coach) or not throwing massive amounts of cash and whatever sexy free agent name is on the market.
Contributing Editor, SB Nation Chicago. Please follow us on Twitter!
I can't speak for everyone
But I DO remember just a few short years ago when the Cubs WERE cheap. I will take my chances of 100 out of 100 times with the Cubs spending over not spending as a fan.
I can’t believe what I am reading in some of these posts? DOES ANYONE ACTUALLY THINK SPENDING LESS ON PLAYER PROCUREMENT IS GOING TO IMPROVE THE ON FIELD PRODUCT? Utter insanity
" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "
It depends on what you mean by "player procurement."
If you’re referring to dumping massive amounts of money (and years) on 30+-year-old free agents with sexy names then spending less isn’t insanity at all.
I would ask you: Isn’t channeling money into drafting and player development also “player procurement”? Because that’s what the Ricketts have said they intend to do.
Contributing Editor, SB Nation Chicago. Please follow us on Twitter!
Ultimately I would like to see
The Cubs develop a top notch farm system. I just don’t want to wait through 4 or 5 70ish win season in order for that to happen. We’ve already committed about 115 million in existing and arbitration guys for 2011. I think we need to push through and spend money to keep this group competitive.
Despite all the recent hype. This isn’t a ML system that is going to supply much other than BJax and a few pitchers over the next couple of seasons. So we need to get high level free agents to compete in the forseeable future.
That is the difference between MLB baseball and the NFL or NBA. You can build farm system and spend at the MLB level at the same time. Hence the Boston and NYY franchise models.
" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "
And that is the point of argument.
A lot of people don’t think this group can remain competitive. The Cubs spent $145 million last year and the team wasn’t even marginally competitive. With all the team issues would signing Adam Dunn for 4 years/$60 million or whatever he wants make them a seriously competitive team for the next few years?
The fear of many is the constant chasing of 30+ year old free agents is not going to result in anything positive. True that can lead to some 70 win seasons but spending money can too if the Cubs are saddled in 2012 and 2013 with more aging stars with large contracts.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that a larger payroll isn’t better but there is concern in allowing Hendry free reign to sign more overpriced free agents.
John Grabow: $4.8 million in 2011.
4/52 would be the top end I'd like to see them go on Dunn
We have no bats on the horizon. We are going to need some offense even after the kids come up. Dunn has been remarkably healthy since he came up. So I do think Adam Dunn would be a good signing to bridge the gap between the Aramis Ramirez led Cubs and the next generation.
What I don’t want is to become the Baltimore Orioles. A team that spent, decided to go “Young and build from within”. Couldn’t develop players fast enough to compete. Now they have trouble getting people to take their money to come play there.
Bottom line to me is this. If you have the ability to spend 135-145 Million on payroll. And the ability to be competitive at the MLB level. Then you owe it to the fans to try and compete.
" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "
It's probably going to take $145-$150M to emulate Boston.
That said, they spent their current $145M so unfathomably poorly that they have no elite players whatsoever.
If there is an opportunity to acquire a top performer – i.e., when Miguel Cabrera was available a few years back, the Cubs have to take it.
And in doing so, they’d have to spend some serious money. I don’t see this franchise doing well if payroll were limited to, say, $115M. At a minimum, they’d be squandering their built-in advantage.
Bottom line – as we’ve seen, spending $145M doesn’t guarantee success. But it certainly helps. Hopefully the next GM will spend his $145M more intelligently.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
I do agree they need to do both.
I’m not quite as sold on the idea that Adam Dunn is worth overpaying for right now.
Contributing Editor, SB Nation Chicago. Please follow us on Twitter!
That is totally fair enough
" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "
you seem to think becasue we've spent $115 million
we have an 85+ win roster
you keep saying push things over the top in terms of payroll, but the on-field product in terms of production isn’t close to the top. You’d be pushing it over .500
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Dec 1, 2010 12:36 PM CST up reply actions
Let's take it back to 2005.
After the 2005 season, the Cubs had every opportunity to sign Carlos Beltran – a true impact bat, and a CF to boot – and a guy who had just propelled a division rival to a rather improbable comeback.
Based upon everything we’ve read and heard, the Cubs decided against raising the payroll over some arbitrary figure.
A year later, for whatever reason, they were more than willing to raise the payroll substantially – and still remained in the black.
By all means, spend wisely! And I am well aware – all TOO aware – that payroll doesn’t perfectly correlate with wins.
But I don’t want to go back to the days when we pass on the Carlos Beltrans and Miguel Tejadas and Ivan Rodriguezes of the world because Jacque Jones and Alex Gonzalez and Michael Barrett provide half the production at half the price.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
This
This is what I’m afraid the gameplan will be for the Cubs going forward.
2003-2004 offseason: We can get Miggy Tejada to plug our huge hole at SS, But lets not because we already have to pay Alex Gonzalez
2005-2006 offseason: We should make a push for Raffy Furcal, but he wants too much money. Lets resign Neifi instead, forget Giles also, Jack Jones will sign for half the cost
2004-2005 offseason: Beltran wants a whole lot of money. Lets sell the fans on "addition by subtraction and sign Jeromy Burnitz to a one year deal. They we can be flexible to not sign anyone good next year also.
The 100 year drought hasn’t happened because the Cubs have spent on Free Agents. This flexing payroll muscle is only a 4 season trend at this point. Don’t let one dismal season cloud your view of that.
Its also because we’ve spent on the wrong guys too much.
Bradley over Abreu
Maddux over Tejada in 2004
Soriano over Beltran
" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "
hard to judge
in a market with two legitimate superstars (Lee and Crawford) who both play positions you already have long-term liabilities to right?
i think next year when the 1B crop becomes FAs would be much more telling
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Dec 1, 2010 3:05 PM CST up reply actions
Sure, on Crawford.
On Lee – I don’t think we have a SP1, and it seems that our expensive starters are only signed for the next 2 years.
More to my point, however, I am definitely more pessimistic than you are about the direction the Ricketts intend to take this franchise. I’ll probably be in this mindset until there’s some reason to believe.
Granted, we follow this team more closely than most. But over the last 12 months, there have been almost zero executive decisions – on field or off field – made by the Cubs that I would have endorsed.
I simply feel that the RIcketts have the organization on the wrong track. I think that they’re utterly out-of-tune and tone-deaf with their fanbase, and at times, like the intiial reaction to the Zambrano situation last year, the front office looks like rank amateurs, or as one columnist put it, “weapons-grade stupid”.
I also know, and understand, the argument that standing pat may be the best way forward at the moment, because our current roster is relatively talent-free and unfathomably expensive, so why spend more on an elite arm like Lee?
I’m willing to give the Ricketts some more time before I start condemning them or saying that the franchise is doomed to more decades of mediocrity. But at the moment, I’m seriously concerned, and I cannot be alone. I think that they need to change some faces in the front office immediately.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
by D98 on Dec 1, 2010 4:12 PM CST up reply actions
2006-2007 team improved 19 games by sigining
Lilly
Soriano
Marquis
Mark DeRosa
Then improved another 12 by adding Rich Harden in 2008
Baseball isn’t played on a Baseball prospectus sheet. The NL Central is absolutely winnable in 2011. No reason to believe a HUGE bat at First. Full season’s from Castro and Aramis Ramirez. And some bullpen improvement can’t push this Club the 10-12 games it needs to be in the Central race.
" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "
no reason to believe?
there’s a whole lot of statistical reason to believe it…
Dunn in his best years is a 3-4 WAR player. We’d need 8-10 additional wins to get to the point of fringe contention. Some of that can come from internal growth of guys like Castro, Cashner, etc and a rebound from Ramirez/Zambrano, but that’s assuming EVERYTHING goes right and nothing goes wrong
that’s a weak assumption
by the way that 2007 team won 85 games
EIGHTY FIVE
you know how many years that gets you into the playoffs in the history of baseball??? Less than a handful.
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Dec 1, 2010 3:09 PM CST up reply actions
We had 750 OPS's from DLee and Ramirez
Dunn’s yearly 900 and even an 825 from Aramis would change that whole lineup dynamic. We were also 10 games under .500 in one run games. Even getting back to .500 in that category gets us to 80 wins.
85 wins likely puts you into contention in the NL Central.
" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "
Into contention, yes.
But I think you really need to shoot for 90 wins minimum to have a serious shot.
Contributing Editor, SB Nation Chicago. Please follow us on Twitter!
It makes perfect sense
if you believe your long term fix will be available a year from now
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Dec 1, 2010 7:43 AM CST up reply actions
While I agree that Kosuke
Is capable of providing some value, the current state of this franchise just doesn’t justify him playing in chicago next year. Like I said, any salary relief is better than none and we shouldn’t be losing any value with colvin playing daily. I truly have a hard time believing that NO team is willing to take dome even with a massive discount. I’m starting to wonder if hendry is holding off for the best deal or is just asking too much. We’ll just have to let the offseason play out.
by renocubfan on Nov 30, 2010 12:58 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
Berkman
•An executive interested in Lance Berkman expects that it would take a one-year deal worth $7MM to sign the switch-hitter, according to Yahoo’s Jeff Passan.
This would be a viable option I could get on board w/ it’s just I doubt Berks wants to play in Chicago especially considering he does not like hitting in Wrigley and the fact he is trying to post rebound numbers to get a better deal for 2012.
http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chicago-cubs-wrigley-bound/
The Berkman does not like hitting in Wrigley seems a non-starter
he is talking with Oakland, probably the worst hitter’s park in baseball. Also, the A’s are looking at him primarily as a DH, a position he has said he prefers NOT to play, yet he is still negotiating with them. Hitting at Wrigley is at best a minor issue if it is an issue at all.
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Dec 1, 2010 7:46 AM CST up reply actions
RE:
I didn’t say it was major issue and probably if the Cubs were willing to pony up the most money he probably could forget a lot but if all things are equal I’d say the Cubs would probably be on he bottom of the list.
http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chicago-cubs-wrigley-bound/
an assumption based on what exactly?
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Dec 2, 2010 7:39 AM CST up reply actions
Duh
Based on the fact he said flat out he does not like hitting in wrigley and does not like the fans. Further more Berkman is doing exactly what I thought he would head somewhere that is a hitters paradise to post some rebound numbers for a contract in 2012 i.e. Coors.
http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chicago-cubs-wrigley-bound/
he's "reportedly"
turned down the Rockies offer (deemed it too low), looking for 7-10 million
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Dec 2, 2010 12:11 PM CST up reply actions
so based on nothing substantial, thanks for clarifying
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Dec 3, 2010 8:44 AM CST up reply actions
I think I'd like to see the Cubs make that offer.
Contributing Editor, SB Nation Chicago. Please follow us on Twitter!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bleed Cubbie Blue
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
