Sell + New Philosophy
by Luis on Apr 21, 2010 9:02 AM CDT
Email
Print
I think it would actually be a great thing if the Cubs have an awful start to the season, to the point that they become sellers at the trade deadline. The moment is right. The Cubs have an awfully high payroll and clearly this team is not built for the future. The Cubs just can't afford to resign Ramirez, Lee, Lilly, with the money they already owe and the results they are getting, and will get. Trade these players who will be free agents, and clean house. It's time to realize that Hendry doesn't have the talent to produce a good offensive ballclub. 2008 was an outlier (and in the playoff they reverted to the usual Cub type offense). We have enough evidence that Hendry doesn't know how to build an offense. Right? He can build a good enough starting pitching staff for the regular season, but that's about it. He doesn't know what an ace looks like, or the importance to invest in one. It's time to move on and start fresh with a new philosophy. It's the right moment.
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.
123 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
What I see
I have seen for a lot more than 14 games. I’m not saying that it’s impossible for the Cubs to get better this season, or even make the playoffs (with some, or a lot of luck, probably). I’m saying that the Cubs are not built to win and now is the perfect moment to realize that rather than get deeper in the hole we are alrady in. The problems with the Cubs are recurrent. I personally I’m tired of it. I’m willing to trade some years of complete futility for a chance at a brighter future than to continue to see the same problems over and over again and keep hoping for some luck. There is no more payroll flexibility to try and fix the problems. If we get in deeper now, it will only make it worse in the future. I hope this team loses, and loses a lot. That way the right choice will be easier.
Wait so....
While I have been yelling at my TV as I watch the Cubs fail, you have been smiling and enjoying this failure? Dammit!
It's really hard to answer this question on April 21.
Maybe the Cubs stay this awful up to the trade deadline and become sellers. Maybe they don’t. But, hey, if it makes you feel better to blame everything on Jim Hendry and fantasize about how you’d create the perfect team of miraculously productive young players, go for it. We all need to take our solace where we can get it right now.
I don't know either
But I am confident in my assessment that the Cubs are not built to win. There is a preponderance of evidence, and the payroll is already to high. Patches upon patches upon patches eventually catches on. The Cubs can make the playoffs this year. Yes. I’m saying that I hope they don’t. It’s the same with Soriano. I knew that Soriano would make the Cubs better than they were for 2007. But I didn’t want Soriano, just as I don’t want anymore of these type of Cubs teams.
The Ricketts have stressed the importance of the farm system since taking over.
I would think/hope that, with their finance background, we won’t see another Soriano-esque contract under their watch. As far as some of the other long-term deals go, well, sometimes teams need a free agent to fill a given position and such players don’t come cheap.
You hope the Cubs don't make the playoffs?
Why?
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Because
If the Cubs make the playoffs they will lose an oportunity to get young talent in return for some kew free agents, and thus will need more time to rebuild (which I think it’s inevitable). If I thought the Cubs could fix their issues and saw a light at the end of this tunnel, I would obviously hope they make the playoffs. But I don’t see that. The problems the Cubs have are systemic and need a change in philosphy. If you don’t address them accordingly, I can see a lot of average teams for a long time. A rebuilding project never assures that you will have a winner, but I am certain that the Cubs as they are one, and with the little room in payroll flexibility, are destined for average results for a long time.
If the Cubs make the playoffs...
… they have a shot at winning the WS. Once you get in, it’s a crapshoot. I’d take that chance any time.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Al
The playoffs are a crapshoot, but not entirely. I have seen enough of these Cubs in the playoffs… there is nothing to suggest that I should expect something different. And a chance at the WS is not enough for me to have almost certain mediocrity for many years to come. It’s the exact same argument to the Soriano signing.
Each playoff year is different.
The Cardinals got in last year and did exactly what the Cubs did the last two years — got swept out of the first round.
Absolutely, positively, I take a WS title — even if years of mediocrity would follow, which is almost impossible.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
You take a WS title
And I would too. The problem is that you are not taking a WS title, you are taking a chance at a WS title. And for me, the chances that happening are so miniscule that they are not worth enough for me to that mortage the future anymore than the Cubs have already done so.
I understand what you're saying.
Still, if I knew the Cubs could get in the playoffs this year? I take that, every single time.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
It's hard to make a case for a philosophy of waiting
when you’ve waited over a century, and you have the payroll to spend.
It’s really only plausible to make that case for waiting in hindsight.
4/9/10: Carlos Silva strikes out Joey Votto on three pitches. Is that what you mean by "small sample size"?
And I understand your argument
Plus, I don’t go to Wrigley 81 times a year, so my perspective is certainly going to be different.
Going to the ballpark has nothing to do with my desire for a playoff team.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Well
I think it’s not the same experience watching a team fail in person that from afar. Perhaps it’s easier to tolerate rebuilding from GameDay than everyday at the ballpark. That’s all I was saying
Maybe so.
Not trying to criticize your position that much — it’s not unreasonable. However, IF the Cubs wind up in a playoff possible position this summer — they have to go for it. We are not in rebuilding mode, not yet.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
For me, the really interesting question
is where the line is. I agree that we go for it if we have a shot.
But I really would hate to go for it and end up 5 games out.
I can live with going for it and missing by a game or two – although that will hurt, too.
This is going to be a tough call for Hendry.
4/9/10: Carlos Silva strikes out Joey Votto on three pitches. Is that what you mean by "small sample size"?
Yes, it is.
But it’s too early to make any such call.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I agree about it being too early.
4/9/10: Carlos Silva strikes out Joey Votto on three pitches. Is that what you mean by "small sample size"?
Al..........
Send him to the thread where we debated the teams that have the highest RS wins are the ones who win the WS.
I understand that you think the Cubs would be better off rebuilding
as you think the team is fundamentally flawed, but your argument smells pretty fishy when you say dumb things like you hope the team fails to make the playoffs.
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 Apr 21, 2010 10:44 AM CDT up reply actions
Maybe you don't like my choice of words
But essentially I’m saying that I just don’t want to keep suffering for the next 20 years as I have for the past 20 years. I think that not selling this year would make it more likely that the trend would continue. Of course I want the Cubs to win. But realistically, I believe that a little win now would actually hurt a lot more than it would help in the long run.
I'm rec'ing this fanpost as a whole
not because I agree with Luis, but it’s uncalled for to say that he’s saying “dumb things.”
He’s making his case respectfully and ably, and has the guts to go out on a limb and stand behind what he’s saying with the provocative point that he thinks we’re better off selling this year than making a push for a low-likelihood WS shot.
4/9/10: Carlos Silva strikes out Joey Votto on three pitches. Is that what you mean by "small sample size"?
Thanks for the clarification
It’s clear we don’t agree exactly, but you certainly understand my points completely.
Rec whatever you want, but
there are less dumb ways of saying you want the team to start over and rebuild than saying you hope they don’t make the playoffs.
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 Apr 21, 2010 4:25 PM CDT up reply actions
Yabbut
What he’s saying is that he doesn’t think we’re good enough to contend, so he’d rather lose more in the regular season so a sell-off wasn’t a question. I can agree to this degree: I’d much rather be 10 out at the trade deadline than 2 if I had a time machine that told me we’d end the season 5 out no matter what we did.
4/9/10: Carlos Silva strikes out Joey Votto on three pitches. Is that what you mean by "small sample size"?
Because he thinks we're better off if we can trade Lee, Ramirez, and Lilly
than getting into the playoffs and losing. This was the same conversation DCF and I had over the off-season. I contested that the team was good enough to get to the playoffs if some breaks went out way and you lost little in trade value by waiting to trade Lee and Lilly. DCF contended that we waste no money on guys like Grabow (and I think also Byrd).
The problem with this team is that there is a lot that’s good – the starting pitching, the corner infielders, hopefully the catching again – but also a lot that needs fixing.
The real question here for Luis is what he thinks we can get if we trade off Lee, Lilly, and Ramirez; maybe also some of Zambrano, Theriot, Fukudome, Grabow, and Marmol. Is the return off of those players going to be worth a shot at the playoffs if we’re close?
4/9/10: Carlos Silva strikes out Joey Votto on three pitches. Is that what you mean by "small sample size"?
Yep, you got it right
And IMO, yes, I think what we can get for those players is worth a shot at the playoffs (i.e., if the Cubs are treading water, and “close enough”). If the Cubs somewhow become elite and have a great (and I mean great) record at the deadline, obviously things change, but I don’t expect that at all. Barring that unlikely scenario, I would certainly sell.
I would say
you cannot trade Lee or Ramirez as the Cubs have zero depth at the minor leagues to replace those guys.
One the trade block wold be Soriano, Dome, Theriot, Fonty, Lilly, Z, Dempster, Marmol as the Cubs have some depth at those spots.
We won’t know if we are buyers or sellers until June/July. So today, I say we take a playoff team 100% of the time even if it means sucking next year. You can’t win a WS unless you get in.
There will be 1B on the FA market next year.
4/9/10: Carlos Silva strikes out Joey Votto on three pitches. Is that what you mean by "small sample size"?
Who do you anticipate to be available?
I haven’t looked closely.
Via MLB Trade Rumors
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/09/2011-mlb-free-agents.html
Are you familiar with the old robot saying, "Does not compute"?
by dr stabbingworth on Apr 21, 2010 12:32 PM CDT up reply actions
Those options suck.
I’d rather keep Lee and hope we develop someone in the next few years, unless we can trade him for a 1B prospect to a team who has a “win now” attitude.
Change in Philosophy
Let me raise this question. Say you see a talented core that could win 85 games – not enought to get you to the playoffs, but enough to raise hopes. Is it worth overpaying for a free agent who could get you into contention for the next 2-3 years, but will hamstring you later? Or would you rather go cheaper and take a risk on a player who might pan out and be better for longer (at least per dollar), but might also not be enough to get you to the playoffs?
4/9/10: Carlos Silva strikes out Joey Votto on three pitches. Is that what you mean by "small sample size"?
Are you talking about now or in 2007?
Right now we don’t have any payroll flexibility. It would be insane to have an even higher payroll, so that is out of the question. In 2007, you could think about that possibility, but also you have to always keep in mind the type of player you are overpaying for. It’s one thing to give Pujols 30 million when he will be worth 20, than to give Soriano 18, when he be will be worth 2. Pujols is a game changer, Soriano never was.
I'm talking in general.
When you have a team with that core and the flexibility, do you supplement with the best you can get off the free agent market?
Soriano was a 7 win player in 2007 and a 4.5 – 5.5 win player in 2006 and 2008.
4/9/10: Carlos Silva strikes out Joey Votto on three pitches. Is that what you mean by "small sample size"?
I would certainly look at it
You certainly have to look at the circumstances, and sometimes you make that type of gamble. Even if Soriano was a 4.5 to 5.5 win player, you know that his game was deeply flawed and certainly not fit to give that king of investment in the long run. Part of his supposed value was his speed, and when the Cubs signed him he was already at an age where speed declines rapidly, not to mention the future projection. His lack of plate discipline was alarming, and you can have a good guess that loses of bat speed would affect him greatly. He sucked in the playoffs, with reason (before the Cubs signed him). What else? There was no argument to give him that money for those years. The only reason he got it was because the Tribune was being sold and the knew they wouldn’t have to deal with it.
Soriano
Let’’s say this – his low discipline approach is not what I like in a player, but pre-Lou, Jim didn’t mind that, so Soriano really did look good to JH.
Soriano’s defense was rated well until his legs went out.
And we needed a lead-off hitter.
And it was worth trying to see if he’d be able to hold down CF for a year until Pie was ready.
And he had a great track record of health.
It’s easy to look back in hindsight and say it was miserable.
It was also easy to look ahead and say that Soriano was probably going to be a drag at the back of the contract.
But it’s hard to find a free agent that won’t be a drag at the back of his contract, and the more wins he adds up front, the more risk you take at the back.
4/9/10: Carlos Silva strikes out Joey Votto on three pitches. Is that what you mean by "small sample size"?
With Soriano it wasn't hard to know
You don’t give that money for someone who was already 31 and was never elite. To Jim Hendry he looked great. I know. But that’s because JH doesn’t know how to evaluate hitting talent. Soriano was always known as a defensive liability was a 2B, and your not going to give him an 8 year contract because some defensive system says he was ok in his 1 year as a LF. His OBP, probably the most important thing in baseball offensively, was below average. He wasn’t even a HR machine, and he certainly was not a leadoff hitter. In fact, there was absolutely nothing that Soriano was elite at. He got fame because he hit a lot of HRs for a 2B. The moment he moves to LF he should have been viewed as average, slightly above average.
I don't think it's possible for Cub fans to look back at Soriano objectively.
The dude hit 35+ HRs 4/5 years before the Cubs signed him. What do you mean by “HR machine”? Soriano was the best hitter on the free agent market. He wasn’t “elite” in the sense of being a top 10 hitter, but how often are those guys available to a team coming off two straight losing seasons?
He was a lead-off hitter. He may not have been a lead-off hitter by your definition that OBP is the most important thing, but he was a lead-off hitter in the sense of having game-changing speed and in how well he excelled at being the first batter a pitcher faced.
No, you don’t work off of defensive systems alone. You also work off what your scouts say. We just don’t have access to JH’s scouts’ opinions. But there was enough there that they thought he might be able to hold down CF better than JJ.
And you’re way off on calling him “average, slightly above average” as a LF. The WAR stat I cited earlier takes into account your position. Soriano was the 9th best position player by WAR in 2007. Let’s say that again. Soriano was a TOP TEN position player in all MLB in 2007 by WAR.
4/9/10: Carlos Silva strikes out Joey Votto on three pitches. Is that what you mean by "small sample size"?
Good info, thanks
The question then is, does the 9th best position player in 2006 warrant a mega-stud contract on the order of what you’d pay an Albert Pujols or Manny Ramirez?
Sittin' on the ledge and sippin' Kool-Aid...
In 2007
In 2006, he was 19th.
And you’re right on about the question, except that Manny and Albert get more than Sori. Albert’s pricetag is going to be HUGE.
4/9/10: Carlos Silva strikes out Joey Votto on three pitches. Is that what you mean by "small sample size"?
Part of me applauds Hendry's willingness to gamble on Sori
Not even I would have anticipated Sori’s fall from grace like we’re seeing. While you can argue that the Tribune was cynical enough to sign Sori to 8 years and $18M per because it was going to be someone else’s problem, I don’t see Jim Hendry as the Machiavellian type. He loves raw talent and athleticism (and Sori’s HR power), and so I think he was willing to give Sori’s shortcomings the benefit of the doubt. That said, he may have to ultimately pay for that contract with his job.
Sittin' on the ledge and sippin' Kool-Aid...
I think Hendry targetted Sori
and the Trib pushed him to pay more than he would have. There’ve been reports suggesting this.
4/9/10: Carlos Silva strikes out Joey Votto on three pitches. Is that what you mean by "small sample size"?
Isn't WAR what Fangraphs takes into account
to measure player free agent salary worth? That systems rates Theriot as being worth 14.8 million in 2008 and 11.9 in 2009. I’m sorry, but it’s going to be hard to convince me that Soriano was a top ten position player in MLB, even in 2007.
In essence
I think WAR is not good at measuring defensive value, and thus, can give you some pretty weird estimations for overall player value. Such as the one for Theriot, and there are others like that.
In fairness
Sori’s defensive value in 2007 was abnormally large.
But the overall point is that you don’t usually get a chance to get a guy like Teix or Pujols, especially not with the record the Cubs had heading into 2007.
4/9/10: Carlos Silva strikes out Joey Votto on three pitches. Is that what you mean by "small sample size"?
The year before
There was exactly that player, in a premium position, and where the Cubs had a whole. It was Beltran. You can make the argument, and I agree with it, that in free agency you overpay because elite players aren’t available that often. But you need to know when to overpay and to which player. Just because he was the best player that year, doesn’t mean you give him that contract. You wait. Of course, with the Tribune being sold, they just wanted a winner when they were selling and did not care what happened later. That’s why he was given that contract.
Beltran and "You wait"
Beltran was 2005, right? I think the go for Sori, though, was a reaction to the restraints McPhail put on Hendry when Beltran was available.
Anyway, this gets back to The Question. You’ve got a core you like and you think a free agent could put you over the top. You pass up the 5 win free agent who fits a lineup need and doesn’t block any prospects. You wait another year with a core in the latter half of its prime?
4/9/10: Carlos Silva strikes out Joey Votto on three pitches. Is that what you mean by "small sample size"?
My answer
If you think that signing Soriano to an 8 year 136 million dollar contract is the only way you have a chance to make the playoffs with a certain core of players, then I’d say you certainly wait until you have a better core. Either that, or you look for other ways to improve your team. The risk vs. reward equation doesn’t fit in this case. I think you always should give reasonable contracts, regardless of the situation of your club. You might overpay,during certain scenarios, but within reason.
The moment the Cubs signed Soriano you knew he would be untradeable. When you know someone is untradeable (without eating money) right after they sign a contract, then you know a very bad investment has been made.
Soriano is not, and was never, a game changer. No matter how you look at it, you don’t give 8 year contracts to someone who is not a game changer. Under no circumstance.
When Boston signed David Ortiz
they knew it was going to hurt on the back end of the contract – or at least they knew it was likely to hurt. But they did it because that’s what it took to keep him and he’s a fan favorite. I think they made the right decision.
The difference is that Boston kept their payroll flexibility. Now that may have been easier to do since their ownership situation was fixed. But I contested at the time and still contest that the real mistake was with Felix Pie, not Soriano.
Lou’s misuse of Pie may be turning out to be more damaging than Dusty’s misuse of Prior.
4/9/10: Carlos Silva strikes out Joey Votto on three pitches. Is that what you mean by "small sample size"?
Btw
Something that is not measured by these systems is consistency. I would not give that kind of money for a player that is a streaky as Soriano… Usually you pay that for the players that the team can rely on, especially when everybody else gets tight and is not performing. I would not give 20 million dollars for a guy that can disappear as easily as he does.
Tom Ricketts and Long-Term Planning
It’ll be interesting to see if Tom Ricketts is indeed willing to weather hard times for a year or two, allowing guys like Lee to become FAs and ARam to opt out of his deal. It’ll also be interesting to see if he authorizes Hendry to sell at the deadline if, say, the Cubs are 10 games out by the end of July.
One thing that rankled me about the Tribune-Andy MacPhail era was their refusal to trade what veteran talent the Cubs had for prospects and initiate a rebuilding phase during a down year. This refusal really seemed to be based on a crass philosophy of “it’ll look like we’re not trying to win and we’ll lose face (and season ticket deposits) with the fans”, more than on a sincere principle to honestly compete.
Many have said MacPhail was hired by the Trib because he won on a budget in Minnesota, and I think there’s a lot of truth in that. MacPhail was able to sustain success with the Twins by augmenting their core with modest FA signings. But the situation was entirely different when he arrived on the North Side. For one thing, FAs began demanding more money than he was used to paying. Another factor to consider is that the Cubs never had the core of young talent MacPhail inherited when he became the Twins GM. What then transpired was a “lightning in a bottle” approach year after year, filling the roster with modestly-talented veterans that were enticing enough to keep the seats filled and to contend within the division.
But there’s a new sheriff in town now. And I plan to stay tuned to see what Ricketts does, with respect to player contracts that are set to expire and opportunities to bring in young and inexpensive talent via the trade route. Will he ignore the whining and the criticism that the Cubs are going to rebuild for the umpteenth time (which I would personally find spurious) and begin dismantling the current roster? Will he risk the backlash of “that’s just peachy, I have to wait even longer for the Cubs to win a championship”? Will he have the conviction to institute a long-range, top-down philosophy of thoroughly evaluating and developing talent through the farm, as has been done by John Schuerholz and Theo Epstein?
Sittin' on the ledge and sippin' Kool-Aid...
If the Cubs miss the playoffs...
…I don’t think it will matter whether it is by one game or 15 games, I believe Ricketts will consider both a failure and will act accordingly.
A team with this payroll should not be missing the playoffs two straight years, and signficant changes should be made.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
Agreed.
However, April 21 is way too early to be making that judgment.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Way too early...
…I would be surprised if the Cubs are at least not in the hunt come trade deadline time, but I do think they will probably fall short.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
Hendry should be gotten rid off regardless of their record
Hendry should’ve been shown the door a long time ago. The notion that he can be evaluated on the success of the 2010 Cubs is totally nonsensical.
The rosters he’s put together the last few seasons have been poor. Just because they exceed expectations (if they make the playoffs) doesn’t retroactively make the roster better constructed.
Shameless self promotion: Check out my website!!!
http://www.itsnotabook.com
by WittyUserName on Apr 21, 2010 11:08 AM CDT up reply actions
IMO...
…the Cubs have needed a much more well rounded guy running the baseball operations for quite a while.
I hope Ricketts recognizes this sometime later this year, or I have to say, I will be really dissappointed.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
Totally agree!
It should have been clear after the 97-win season that he had no clue what he was doing.
4/9/10: Carlos Silva strikes out Joey Votto on three pitches. Is that what you mean by "small sample size"?
Um, what?
I’m not going to argue that the 2008 roster was well built, but to say that one season of great success validates the managerial prowess of a GM is ridiculous.
Hendry has certainly made his fair share of good moves. But he’s clearly a poor strategist and he doesn’t appear understand the simple concept of making a good investment vs. return.
Hendry is a bad GM. Winning 97 games in ‘08 under his watch doesn’t mean that he’s a good bet to continue to construct rosters that can have such success. You’ve heard this wisdom before, something about a blind squirrel…
Shameless self promotion: Check out my website!!!
http://www.itsnotabook.com
by WittyUserName on Apr 21, 2010 12:35 PM CDT up reply actions
You're arguing that we should have seen this earlier.
So, I’m questioning the realism of firing him after a 97 win season.
4/9/10: Carlos Silva strikes out Joey Votto on three pitches. Is that what you mean by "small sample size"?
Yes and No
I recognize that nobody is going to be fired after winning 97 games, it just won’t happen.
I’m not arguing anything other than Hendry is a bad GM. If the Tribune ownership really cared about winning (or knew what they were doing in regards to baseball), they’d have looked to replace Hendry.
I was hoping that Ricketts would clean house. But I also understand wanting to give the team one last chance, even though I don’t agree.
People seem quick to point to a GM’s good moves or his teams W-L records as credentials. I see this as being similar to judging a SP based on Wins. Sure, there’s a strong positive correlation between good pitchers / GMs and high win totals. But simply having a lot of wins doesn’t make you a good GM or pitcher, and simply having a lot of loses doesn’t inherently make you bad either.
Shameless self promotion: Check out my website!!!
http://www.itsnotabook.com
by WittyUserName on Apr 21, 2010 12:51 PM CDT up reply actions
I think WAR is totally relavant
I’m honestly not a sabermagician, things like .wOBA kind of go over my head a bit.
But there’s no denying (loigcally anyway) the truth that these advanced metrics are showing. And frankly one of the things that really bothers me about Hendry is he doesn’t seem really interested in embracing that these stats are a far better representation of a players’ true worth than anything else before it.
Grabow is a perfect example from this last offseason. All the numbers pointed to him being mediocre and not worth something like what Hendry gave him. But based on half a season of good pitching and good luck, Hendry way overspent.
Shameless self promotion: Check out my website!!!
http://www.itsnotabook.com
by WittyUserName on Apr 21, 2010 1:00 PM CDT up reply actions
Well, what are those advanced metrics showing?
That Hendry is a bad GM? Not so. In fact, Jimbo has acquired much more WAR than he’s given away.
I haven't looked
I’ll be honest in that I don’t usually pour over stats, specifically advanced metrics.
I believe you if your telling me that he has acquired more WAR than he’s let go, but that isn’t exactly telling us everything we need to know. Is he not paying more per WAR than he should be?
I don’t have to look much farther than the last few offseasons. Grabow, Gregg, Heilman and Miles have all been paid a dispropotionate amount in relation to their WAR, correct? (I’d be lying if I said that I knew what these guys’ WAR were). And I know that Gregg and Heilman were acquired via trade, but weren’t they paid more than they should’ve been?
Shameless self promotion: Check out my website!!!
http://www.itsnotabook.com
by WittyUserName on Apr 21, 2010 1:50 PM CDT up reply actions
If you've got some time on your hands...
…read through this and the other related posts linked there. A lot of it’s over my head as well, but food for thought.
Wow that's a lot of text
I glazed through and looked at the chart for FA signings, which I think is all I’ll address for now since we were talking about WAR and paying too much. While Hendry seems to have performed better than I might’ve expected, those numbers seem skewed a bit.
Hendry shouldn’t get a pat on the back for the “contract” he gave Jim Edmonds. Yes, grabbing Edmonds was a good move, but Hendry isn’t the one who gave him his contract, he just had to pick up the league minimum. So that huge differential value that Hendry gets credited with doesn’t seem warranted.
Similarly, nobody, including Hendry, could have forseen that DeRosa would have 3 consecutive years where he seemed to set a new career best. I never thought that DeRosa’s contract was ridiculous, but to annoint Hendry as a genius for that signing seems foolish.
Conversely, I felt that he overspent on Marquis (I still do) yet as it turns out he actually underspent despite my feelings, according to WAR at least.
So I feel that while looking at Hendry’s (or any GM’s) spending vs. WAR across the board is a strong indicator of spending abilities, it certainly doesn’t tell the whole story.
And even if I didn’t think that the final numbers didn’t need to be viewed with bais (which I most definitely believe that they do), that doesn’t even present a decent case that Hendry is a good GM. The only case that could be made using those numbers is “Hendry isn’t that bad of a GM”.
According to those numbers, Hendry has spent a total of $475.15 million and gotten a value of $525.02 million. This is spanning from July of ’02 until now. So in nearly 8 years of being a GM Hendry has netted the team +9.5% worth of value in terms of getting wins per dollar. That tells me that every year he gets slightly greater value, for the whole of his FA signings, than he spends. I think a GM should be striving to get at least 10% more production for his money every season, not every decade.
We could talk about the trades later I suppose.
I’ve had my mind set on writing a fairly elaborate post about why I feel Hendry is a bad GM for a while now, but I haven’t had / given myself the time to sit and write it.
Shameless self promotion: Check out my website!!!
http://www.itsnotabook.com
by WittyUserName on Apr 21, 2010 2:36 PM CDT up reply actions
Under Hendry:
2003 (Five outs from the WS)
2007 (NLCD champs)
2008 (NLCD champs)
2009 (third winning season in a row)
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Apr 21, 2010 12:50 PM CDT up reply actions
Your point?
Just because those teams were winners doesn’t mean that those rosters could have been built to be even more competitive.
The team winning in ‘07 and ’08 doesn’t mean there weren’t several bad contracts handed out by Hendry. Or some terribly foolish trades.
With one of the premiere payrolls in the game it should be expected that the Cubs will be competitive year in and year out. But there’s a difference between being competitive and being the caliber it requires to win it all.
Shameless self promotion: Check out my website!!!
http://www.itsnotabook.com
by WittyUserName on Apr 21, 2010 12:56 PM CDT up reply actions
Hope so
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 Apr 21, 2010 4:26 PM CDT up reply actions
good points on MacPhail
I’m one of the few people who likes MacPhail and believes that he isn’t the devil. MacPhail has admitted that when he arrived in Chicago he underestimated how little talent was in the minors and, in retrospect, he should have started a rebuilding project. Whats done is done, but while the Orioles have gotten off to a poor start, they have a nice core of talent and look to have a bright future.
MacPhail believed in maintaining flexibility in contracts/budgets. I do believe that when MacPhail left, the Cubs front office went far to the other extreme and perhaps its a good thing that John McDonaugh left quickly for the Hawks because the spending frenzy that we’ve seen really has hampered the Cubs. Any possible sell-off would be minimal… there are so few parts that are able to be traded due to back loaded contracts, excessive years, and no trade clauses. The few guys that are able to be traded (Lee, Lilly maybe Dempster) are guys we’d like to have around after this year.
I think MacPhail had his strengths and weaknesses.
I’d like to see Hendry and MacPhail teamed up again and see where that went now with the larger budget. But I’m also interested to see where Hendry goes on his own apart from MacPhail and apart from the Trib’s marketing of the team move.
4/9/10: Carlos Silva strikes out Joey Votto on three pitches. Is that what you mean by "small sample size"?
there needs to be an
“I don’t know, we’re not at the deadline and we don’t know what our record at the deadline will be” option.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
I understand your point
But prefer the poll as it is now. If someone prefers the Cubs taking the shot for the playoffs I’d suggest that they choose the “not sell” option. Usually, unless you are team like Washington, you have some sort of shot at the playoffs at the deadline.
sorry. I won’t use an answer that doesn’t match my opinion.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Apr 21, 2010 11:23 AM CDT up reply actions
No problem :)
It’s pretty difficult to create a poll that can match the opinion of everyone.
Soriano has to go
They have to change the offense and it’s practical to assume the payroll won’t go up alot this year or next or next. I don’t see how they can do this unless they eat payroll big to get Soriano off the team. Then they have to shed at least two big contracts of which one absorbs most of Soriano.
Ricketts has to have the balls to eat Soriano’s contract. Otherwise, we’ll be talking about this next year.
Good luck with that.......
there also has to be a team that believes they are better by adding Soriano. If I were the Cubs, I’d be talking with Boston right now as they have been slumping early and Cameron and Ellsbury are on the DL. We have 5 rotating OFs right now-they could probably use one.
Prime time
Soriano is a nice guy who also makes alot of money. Eating all of this contract erases problems with NTCs and finding another team to take him. Still makes sense to try to get another team to take part of the payroll, but they wouldn’t want to wait around all season for that. I was thinking about the OF situation too. There is probably no better time to trade or release Soriano. Absolutely another team would pick him up when they don’t have to take any risk.
They will have to rely on lower priced talent. For the current OF that talent is defensively better and might not be worse offensively. Not the best situation, but keeping Soriano till the end of his contract is worse (IMO).
by AboutTheCubs on Apr 21, 2010 2:32 PM CDT up reply actions
The problem with selling
The players we want to get rid of will probably be of no interest to other teams. It would be taking one bad contract for another.
Plus unless Lilly has a Halliday like year, I can’t see us getting any valuable prospects in return.
Derrek Lee also doesn’t have as much value as one would think. Every contending team already has a strong 1B barring an injury.
Lilly may be one of the best pitchers available.
We’ll see.
4/9/10: Carlos Silva strikes out Joey Votto on three pitches. Is that what you mean by "small sample size"?
He might be
But I think what the Cubs would ask for/expect back in comparison to other big pitching trades in the last few years will be too much.
But we’re 14 games in…way too early to talk.
Giants?
There might be some place to shop Lee, if it comes to that.
"Wait, are you saying I'm a sunshine-pumping, koolaid-drinking, Soriano-loving, rainbow-rising, unicorn-riding, double-clutching, Sweet Lou-backing, Hendry-supporting, hey hey whaddya saying, Cubs are going all the waying, glass is overflowing, Rothschild is all-knowing, Cubs fan? - ballhawk
The problem right now
is most of the high-salary players we have coming off the books after this season are our best players, and most of the ones locked up long term are bad and untradeable.
It might not be a bad idea at the deadline to have a total firesale, get rid of all our free agents to be, and trade Soriano in any deal you can, even if it means eating all or most of his contract. The team would be bad in 2011—really bad. But starting over might be better than continuing to run with a huge payroll of older, declining players who can’t win a World Series.
DEJESUS!!!
Teams
With $140 Mil payroll flexibility shouldn’t have to rebuild IMHO.
"...but you the living, you're stuck here with the Cubs. So it is ME who feels sorry for you." - Steve Goodman, "A Dying Cub Fan's Last Request"
by HoSs. on Apr 21, 2010 2:24 PM CDT via mobile reply actions
If you are a fan
it unequivocally would NOT be a “great thing” for the team to be terrible and forced to sell off its veteran players.
IF it turns out that they are that bad, we can debate whether it’d be a good thing to trade certain players away for X in return. Regarding that as the goal, however, is a backwards way of looking at things.
by Orval Overall on Apr 21, 2010 2:58 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
well said as usual
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 Apr 21, 2010 4:27 PM CDT up reply actions
Wow dude, you covered all of the cliches in this post.
Sell the farm, sell the kids, sell the dog, fire the everyone. Let’s take a deep breath, drink a beer, sit back and watch grown men with sticks (try to) hit baseballs. Only April.
More over, I don’t understand this “I hope my favorite team fails” mentality at all.
Bears, beets, Battlestar Galactica. - Jim Halpert as Dwight Schrute
This is a pretty asinine post to be reading on April 22
And it’s even more asinine that someone who calls themselves a Cubs fan is rooting for the team to fail.
Why don’t we wait until June/July before we start putting up stuff like this, eh?
God, I hate Cubs fans sometimes.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Apr 22, 2010 2:27 AM CDT reply actions
Which is worse
Cub fans who post this stuff, or the other Cub fans who defend it.
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 Apr 22, 2010 11:43 AM CDT up reply actions
Good point
At least the ones who defend it should know better, maybe.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Apr 22, 2010 2:27 PM CDT up reply actions
Harumph
I applaud Luis for actually saying what others won’t come out and say. There are plenty who are convinced the Cubs can’t win a WS this year, even if they did make the playoffs. If you’re convinced of that, then a real fan of the team would want it to be obvious to JH and TR ASAP so that we maximize our trade off potential instead of doing nothing at the deadline, or worse, buying in.
Luis politely defended his view (I do wish he spent more time outlining what he really thought we could get), which is better than what we get by those who run down the team but won’t admit they’d rather the team lose than win. (And, no, I’m not thinking of anyone specifically as I write this.)
4/9/10: Carlos Silva strikes out Joey Votto on three pitches. Is that what you mean by "small sample size"?
Maybe he did argue it better than other usual suspects
but that makes it no less ridiculous.
Let’s see what happens and where this team sits in late June/early July.
Again, I do not understand the pathology behind this view. And no, you aren’t a “real fan” if you want your team to fail. You just aren’t.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Apr 22, 2010 6:29 PM CDT up reply actions
Well, here's the question -
What’s the bigger failure – to lose 10 more games than you could have or to not be a contender, fail to recognize it, and miss the opportunity to trade off Lee, Lilly, and maybe more? I think you can argue it both ways.
In my mind, there’s a definite possibility that the Cubs will not be far enough out for JH to recognize the need to sell off, and that will be a failure.
I think the people who are convinced they know we’re at that point already are wrong. And I also think the obsession with a WS that refuses to appreciate 1) a winning season, and 2) a playoff berth, is also to blame here. But it is what it is and I don’t think Luis’ way of arguing it deserved the rebuke of “stupid.”
4/9/10: Carlos Silva strikes out Joey Votto on three pitches. Is that what you mean by "small sample size"?
I think it's stupid to be making that point
at this point in the season. If you want to come back in late June or early July, fine. But in late April, it’s stupid. Period.
At least you can respond with a logical, reasoned post, unlike D98.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Apr 22, 2010 11:52 PM CDT up reply actions
You called the guy pathological. You are being a jerk, and DGU gave you way too much credit.
Of course, you are completely unable to do anything but hang yourself with the rope DGU extends to you.
Keep it up. Your thoughts are really becoming popular in these parts.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
You really are
quite the vulgarian, aren’t you?
by Not Bruce Froemming on Apr 23, 2010 8:52 AM CDT up reply actions
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Fortunately, that makes two of us. Vulgarian?!
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
Go rent "A Fish Called Wanda"
And you’ll know. You could use a little humor.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Apr 23, 2010 9:10 AM CDT up reply actions
I get the reference. It just doesn't apply when one is not using vulgarities.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
You don't need to be vulgar
to be a vulgarian.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Apr 24, 2010 12:28 AM CDT up reply actions
So you're really
Kevin Kline? That explains everything.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Apr 24, 2010 11:12 AM CDT up reply actions
Just playing along.
Consider that a DGU-style olive branch.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
And my response
was in that same olive-branch vein.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Apr 26, 2010 6:40 PM CDT up reply actions
"Pathology".
You are the most condescending, closed-minded poster on this board.
Come off your high horse. You can’t be the Thought Police if you’re wrong 75% of the time.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
Condescension? From NBF?
Come off your high horse before you spend another season embarrassing yourself.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
I'd rather be on top of the horse
than be behind it, like yourself. Piss off.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Apr 22, 2010 11:53 PM CDT up reply actions
The logic and reasoning on some of these posts makes me wonder
how people can desire their team to lose. Losing now first off doesn’t guarantee certain players will be moved. Secondly moving players in the next couple months simply because you believe they cannot be signed doesn’t guarantee subsequent success.
I wish I had the desire to go back to college to get a Psych degree because there are many potential patients on this blog…yikes!
Just win the next game...!
fair question
it is hard for many of us to fathom how Cub fans can want the team to lose games.
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 Apr 23, 2010 10:59 AM CDT up reply actions
It is for me
You can’t win a division in April and May but you sure as hell can lose one.
Just win the next game...!
I think I understand what Luis is talking about
Let me illustrate an example that does require several hypotheticals, so it may not be perfect, but bear with me.
In 2005, the Cubs were pretty mediocre. They had a 79-83 record, good for 4th in the NL Central. That year, the Giants were slightly worse; they had a 75-87 record, good for 3rd in a very weak NL West (San Diego won the division with 82 wins).
In the 2006 draft, the Giants picked 10th while the Cubs picked 13th. The Cubs picked Tyler Colvin. The Giants picked Tim Lincecum. 1000 out of 1000 Cubs fans would rather have Tim Lincecum than Tyler Colvin, but the Cubs had no chance at him.
Now, lets say the Cubs win six less games, so they finish with 73 wins, ahead of Baltimore (picking 9th) and the Giants, picking 10th). Cubs scouting director Tim Wilken is on record saying he liked Lincecum a lot so it isn’t a stretch to assume the Cubs would take him if they were 8th in that draft and picks 1-7 happened the same way (another hypothetical).
For the cost of six wins in 2005 (one per month), the Cubs could have had Tim Lincecum. There’s probably nobody here who wuodl trade six wins in a mediocre season (Derrek Lee was the only real highlight) for a guy who’s won the last two NL Cy Youngs.
What’s the point? Luis is saying (I think) that cheering for your team to do worse, so that they get a higher pick and maybe trade some guys. He’d rather bottom out completely and in the process get a couple of blue chip studs either via trade or draft rather than sputter along winning 75-85 games every year and going nowhere.
If the Cubs are going to be bad – and its REALLY EARLY – then I’d rather they’d be 100 loss bad, giving them the chance to draft a guy like Lincecum, rather than 85 loss bad, which gives you the chance to draft Tyler Colvin. If you don’t make the playoffs, then you might as well shoot for the highest possible pick.
"Your eyes can decieve you. Don't trust them." Obi-Wan Kenobi, the first sabermetrician...
I see your point, but that's not what he said
You’re saying if you’re going to be bad, be really bad, so you can get the draft pick. I can see the logic in that. But he said:
“I think it would actually be a great thing if the Cubs have an awful start to the season, to the point that they become sellers at the trade deadline.”
That isn’t the same thing at all. That’s hoping the Cubs will be dreadful from the opening gun and stay that way.
Maybe he’s phrasing it wrong, but that’s what he wrote. And yes, I find it pathological.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Apr 23, 2010 8:55 AM CDT up reply actions
Hmmm,
You posted: “For the cost of six wins in 2005 (one per month), the Cubs could have had Tim Lincecum. There’s probably nobody here who wuodl trade six wins in a mediocre season (Derrek Lee was the only real highlight) for a guy who’s won the last two NL Cy Youngs.”
20-20 hindsight at work. In the heat of the 2005 season, did you really hope the Cubs would lose most days just so they could improve their draft position and get a guy who might win a Cy Young award?
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 Apr 23, 2010 11:03 AM CDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
Cubs By The Numbers
Cubs By The Numbers is a history of the ballclub by uniform number, but the biographies help trace the history of our beloved team in a new way. For everyone who's a Cubs fan, anyone who ever wore the uniform is like family. Cubs By The Numbers reintroduces readers to some of their long-lost ancestors, even ones they think they already know.
Click here to order your copy, available now!
Recent Stories in Chicago Cubs Game Threads
Recent Stories in Ticket Exchanges
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
