Bleed Cubbie Blue

Unfortunately

he also called the win total for last year correctly. That makes two nuts he found.

One of those made up for the nut he said he would give up for Rich Harden to become a Cub, though.

Goodie1969 - December 31, 2009 reply

I don't think it's that bad.

He was my second choice on the FA market behind Cameron. I think he might be a good fit.

I'm OK with the player.

Not with the length of the contract.

I'm OK with everything.

Year 3 he’ll be in RF, and could easily generate a win or so playing everyday there. He’ll probably be worth the contract.

I'd like to see how this deal is backloaded, as is the rumor.

Agreed

Three years is ridiculous for a player like Byrd.

Still, at only $5 per, the last season of the deal should be movable or even eatable if necessary.

Depends on whether the deal is backloaded.

You can't backload a 3/15 deal THAT much.

With numbers this "low", backloading isn't a huge problem.

If it’s, say, $3M, $5M, $7M, the Cubs would be able to send $2M away in a Byrd deal in order to negate the backloading issue.

I mean, if it’s $1M, $1M, $13M, I can see the problem. But I doubt it’s that.

Yes

It’s probably 3, 5, 7. The $7 million is a lot, but as you point out, someone would probably take it if we tossed in $3 million. This deal is not going to hamstring us like an eight-year deal for a LF has.

Three years??? By the time this deal ends, Byrd will be 35. Will he even be able to play center field by then?

Will Hendry even be here by then? Probably not. I’m shocked that Ricketts signed off on this.

Agree

Hendry is trying to save his hide with a good 2010. Marlon Byrd next year is an upgrade. 3 years from now? The future be damned.

Hendry is trying to "do his job by having" a good 2010.

Orval Overall - January 1, 2010 reply

And actually...

… he’ll be 36 at the end of the deal, not 35. Byrd turns 33 in August.

No, and that's why the deal went this way.

Recommend x 3

section229beer - January 1, 2010 reply

"Follow me after the jump for my reaction."

At first glance, I thought you were saying your first reaction was to jump…

Now jump might be a little extreme,

Al might want to throw up his big gulp though.

Eeeeeewwwww! Gross!

so the BIg Gulp wants to jump from his belly

The Marlon Byrd signing

kind of reminds me of the Jacque Jones signing a few years ago. Hope this ends better but I doubt it.

He's better than Jacque Jones.

I'm talking more about the contract.

Yep

Same contract but for a better player. 5 M is not bad at all.

I hope you're right

that the Byrd contract will turn out better for the Cubs.

Different economy though

Players who are not superstars are making less money.

I disliked Jacque Jones.

But I hate Milton Bradley infinitely more.

Nothing beats that Jones homer at Minute Maid he cranked over deep center.

That was off Clemens, right?

Ya, I was one of

the few who actually like Jones. If you weren’t pleased with his 06 season, then your expectations were just unrealistic. True there was a significant power drop in 07, but he held his average and OBP. Also true there was an arm strength issue, but i do believe he had a pretty large range(just guessing don’t have any UZR stats).

nick_reny - December 31, 2009 reply

In fairness

if Byrd repeats his performances of the past few years, the deal will be an absolute steal. The reason he only got 5 mil per is not many people think he can.

We can only hope

the Byrd deal turns out like the DeRosa deal a few years ago. No one thought his production would be the as it was in Texas.

Rec'd

also understand that the Cubs have the hitting coach

that has made Byrd develop into a fair acquisition.

Byrd takes the pressure off for the moment. I am more interested in seeing the Cubs now upgrade their overall roster.

Could they seriously unload Zambrano….would he go to NYC seriously I think Zambrano might break down and if the Cubs can get some value that would begin upgrading this roster.

Ivy Walls - December 31, 2009 reply

I don't think he wants to play for the Yanks

because he couldn’t hit there. He might play for the Mets, but they’ve got nothing we want. I think the only AL team he’d play for is the White Sox.

I still like

Jose Reyes

Z and Theriot

for Reyes and Niese

Except for this also requires his being able to play CF for the duration of the contract

Not a given at all.

After Dome’s contract is up we may be looking for a new CF. Again.

When Dome's contract is up...

We’ll have the money to buy a real CF.

Or B. Jackson could develop into an everyday CF'er

Either way, I expect to see Marlon Byrd in RF in 2012.

Or… the NL could adopt the DH. Soriano could move to that slot and Byrd could play LF!

I'd love to see that happen

But can Selig do that himself? Is there an owner vote?

Marlon's bat in RF would be pretty weak though

He basically earns his wage as a CF with average hitting.

At that point it would only be for a year

Who knows, he could be gone by then or considering Jackson coming up, it wouldn’t be terrible for a year

Musicdude10 - December 31, 2009 reply

exactly.

If we could trade Byrd before 2012 when he is making the most money

and only playing in RF, we have a GM who is better than Hendry.

Or we’re getting another Calos Silva in return.

Hendry is a very good trader (Jim).

If the Cubs have to move him prior to the end of his deal, they’ll probably get a good return on him, assuming he plays up to his projections in the meantime.

Hendry traded Marquis, Jones, and DeRosa

in year two of their contracts. He did well in two of those deals and not as well in the other – but this is the kind of thing he does do.

An expensive platoon player his last year on this contract

He will probably share time with Kosuke and either Colvin, Jackson, or some other lefty CFer at that point. If the average is $5M a year, and it’s backloaded, he could be making 7-8 Million that season to be a platoon player.

The Cubs are in win now mode. Byrd will have the continuity of the same hitting coach that helped him produce these last couple years of good production. I just hope he starts hot, because if not, the bleacherites may get on him but good.

I'm starting to hate the 'win-now' phrase.

With all of these huge contracts, when are we not going to be in ‘win-now’ mode and retool? When Soriano’s off the books?

in theory

you retool as you go. I guess Hendry really doesn’t believe in Fuld.

Are you calling me a tool, drew?

Do you deny the accusation?

Nope.

Perfectly acceptable.

Then all is well.

if the socket wrench fits...

:P

Bruce Levine's ESPN article

says the deal is backloaded. Just what the Cubs need, another backloaded contract. Is Hendry awake at this point?

thejoshbaker - December 31, 2009 reply

It should be.

Those backloaded contracts start coming off the books as soon as next season. A smart GM would backload this one, too, given it’s short term and low cost.

I don't think

backloading is evil. In theory, the value of a dollar gets less and less each year, and the payroll goes higher and higher.

The problem is Hendry backloaded so many deals, so severely, and with such aging/injury prone/ineffective players that he has a giant payroll of immovable, underperforming players and can’t get rid of them.

I don’t like the 3rd year, but to be honest whether it’s a 5-5-5 deal or a 3-4-8 deal doesn’t make much difference. We still pay 15 mil for the 3 years. If we trade him in the third year, any of money we have to eat in the third year we would’ve had to pay in years 1-2 if the deal wasn’t backloaded.

I try and draw a distinction

between backloading and contracts that grow with mild interest. Having a 3/30 contract go 9/10/11 is good financial practice. Having a 5/50 contract go 5/8/10/12/15 can really put you in dire straits.

How about an eight year contract

that goes . . . oh, never mind.

Don't say it!

Why offer players more years

than a bidding rival is willing to offer? It doesn’t make the player go, “Oh, I have to play better because of the favor I’ve been dealt.”

In order to assure getting the player you want...

if you offer the same money/years as the rival bidders, you run a greater risk of the player choosing to go elsewhere.

But what I'm getting at is

that if a team could’ve had him at 2 years 10 million, wouldn’t they have already?

Not necessarily...

he may have been waiting to see if people were willing to bid more before deciding to take a 2/$10 deal before settling on such a deal. We’ll never know for sure.

In Rudy We Trust?

Yes, three years seems too much to me. And I hate the fact that Byrd gets his supplements from Victor “Gray Areas” Conte.

But this signing seems to be coming off of Jaramillo’s recommendation that Byrd is coming into his own. We shall see.

Bill Potter - December 31, 2009 reply

I'll give Jaramillo the benefit of the doubt...

… since he has been very successful and a lot of great hitters swear by him.

how many

years will rudy be here for? i forget

i think he signed a 3-year deal as well.

Bill Potter - December 31, 2009 reply

I thought it was four

Musicdude10 - December 31, 2009 reply

It's three.

backloaded?

/sarcasm

Birds of a feather?

And I hate the fact that Byrd gets his supplements from Victor "Gray Areas" Conte.

Yeah, probably not a good idea to have such a high profile position with Conte.

Oh Crawdad...

(Where’s the “Crawdad Attack” picture when we need it?)

troll

At least

Byrd beats the White Sox method of building the Island of Misfit Outfielders.

yawn all you want

you will be crying next year with you see Rios, Pierre and Andruw Jones in the lineup.

That's what I was thinking.

Just wait ’til they see Juan Pierre try to throw someone out. Brutal!

But

Pierre is fast….

he could run it home faster then throw it home

no, im not making a funny

If you had followed the discussion...

… the yawn was in response to the troll comment.

For the record, I think this is a good signing for the Cubs. Three years, well worry about that if he’s unproductive in year two of the deal.

And no I won’t be crying about Rios, Pierre and Jones in the lineup for a couples reasons. First, that Jones is not projected to be a starter. And second, the Sox World Championship did away with any tears of angry or sadness regarding Sox baseball for me.

dr stabbingworth - December 31, 2009 reply

Ah yes, the "let me prove I'm not a troll by trolling some more" defense

It's a regular

medical conference in here. :)

Signed,
Dr. CubsWin!Oregon

Oh, BS!

I directly answered “CalCalender’s” contention AND included a brief positive comment about the Byrd acquisition.

I think Andruw Jones ate Pierre......so they are already down an OF

I didn't know

people from the Netherlands ate French food.

It is right next door

Soooo...

a career average OPS+ of 99, a guy that can play all 3 OF positions to some degree of positive defensive prowlness, 60 CAREER HOME RUNS, and a WAR that’s a bit above average?

$15 million for three years doesn’t seem THAT bad to me…but we can’t continue to backload contracts, can we? It’s gonna catch up sooner or later, right?

Ummm...

hasn’t it already caught up? Don’t have the numbers off-hand, but the combined salaries of Lee/Ramirez/Soriano/Zambrano/Dempster are already completely hamstringing what the Cubs can do elsewhere. There’s simply too high a % of our payroll in too few players. Not the best recipe for buliding a team.

Jim Hendry needs to be fired.

He’s really starting to suck fat balls.

I generally avoid the 'Fire XXXXX' brigade,

which I’m sure you’re used to seeing being a Badger fan as well. But I think I’ve come around on Hendry. Who’s quote was it, Einstein?

“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”

I think it’s time for Hendry to move on. Thank you for the playoff runs, too bad we couldn’t close it out, but your days are done.

I feel like I’m kitchen-sinking by saying this, but he’s really good at backloading contracts and bad at developing young players. I know that’s a loaded statement and clearly he’s made plenty of great trades during his tenure, but if he left this year that would be my summary statement.

How about really bad at drafting too?

The Cubs farm didn’t rebound until he gave up scouting to Tim Wilken.

Most likely

he’ll be gone after this season. The Cubs will be competitive, but probably just miss the playoffs again, and there will be no need to retain him or Lou. Out with the old, and in with the new.

Not Bruce Froemming - January 2, 2010 reply

I hope you're wrong

And I hop you’ll admit to being wrong if you are.

About just missing the playoffs?

Sure, I’ll happily admit I was wrong if they make it to the post-season. All bets are off when they bow-out of them with zero wins again; they matchup horribly with Philly and LA cause their veterans outside of DLee haven’t shown the ability to hit good/great pitching when it matters most. I don’t really buy-in to “it’s a crapshoot” theory cause they haven’t been even close to winning a single game with this core of players.

Not Bruce Froemming - January 2, 2010 reply

A question

Given who has been out there this year, what could the Cubs have done if they weren’t “hamstrung” by all these salaries, most of which are tied up in key players in the organization?

If they were tied up in salaries that were wastes of space, you might have a point.

Backloading a 5M per year contract

won’t hurt nearly as much as a 12 M per year contract.

Exactly

yup!

I don’t understand bellyaching about the third year of a deal that isn’t worth that much.

cumulative effects

a bunch of small deals that are ineffective in procuring value end up adding up to the equivalent of one big albatross of a contract, only they have more negative effects because they tie up multiple roster spots

i don’t see why people don’t seem to get that the biggest mistakes the Cubs have made over the last decade have been in THIS EXACT MARKET, the mid-level FA. It’s always the guy they’re sending away at the end of the deal and eating money while doing it

I agree with the Cubs making mistakes in the mid-market range.

But that’s mostly because Hendry has a horrible soft spot for overpaying middle relievers coming off career years.

COUGHGrabowCOUGH

But the backloading of this shouldn’t cause any problems. At most, you’re overpaying him by a couple million dollars come 2012. That’s not going to stop them from signing anyone at that point.

Response:

But the backloading of this shouldn’t cause any problems. At most, you’re overpaying him by a couple million dollars come 2012. That’s not going to stop them from signing anyone at that point.

Do you think people thought DeRosa’s contract would prevent us from signing anyone down the road? I seem to recall that we had to unload his contract to have enough money left over to sign Bradley. With the amount of big contracts we have, it is exactly this type of mid-level multi-year free agent signing that cripples future moves.

Go take a look at the Cubs contracts

Yes, they have backloaded deals, but most are coming off the books. If the economy recovers Byrd will probably be getting underpaid next season and maybe even in 2012.

but he'll be getting paid

5-7 million as a likely sub 2.0 WAR player

why???

this isn’t a good business model

He'll probably be worth about 1 WAR in 2012.

That’s a very rough guess. I also expect contracts to be worth $5-6M per win in 2012. If that’s the case, they won’t be overpaying him by more than a million or two. That’s really not that big of a deal.

again cumulative effects

this is making the same mistake over and over again, if its continued to be viewed as “no big deal” the organization is never going to show any ability to improve on this weakness

I agree in theory... but there aren't that many deals in this range

on the books. If they were signing mid-tier FA’s to 5-7 year deals there would be a cumulative effect. But because they’re only 2-3 year deals they’re usually off the books by the time the next one is signed.

we have another 2 offseasons

to make those mistakes again… given that we continue to do it every offseason what makes you think we won’t do it and accumulate those contracts?

we had a limited budget this offseason and we poured it into Marlon Byrd and John Grabow…. this is our answer? This is how we’re going to get better down the road?

Next year is the year the Cubs will...

go after a big FA, when the money comes off the books to do so.

Seriously, what would you prefer the Cubs do? Sit on their hands and wait for the 2010 FA class? OK, but then you’re staring at a .500 ballclub this year.

i'm staring at

an 85 win team now

this doesn’t make me feel any better

...agreed.

But by backloading the contract the Cubs still have a little money to spend.

They could still add a SP, reliever, or 4th OF to push that number upwards to 87-ish wins. Then they’re a breakout year from contending.

relying on a breakout year

just to be a real contender from a team largely on the wrong side of 31 is foolish

drawing an exaggerated comparison its like having an investment plan that revolves around winning the lottery

I agree.

Don’t get me wrong, this signing doesn’t solve all the Cubs problems. I just don’t think it causes that many, either.

i'm of the belief

if you show a pattern of not understanding when to pull back and when to push forward with spending, you’re creating a long-term problem for yourself

this is my opinion of this offseason

i guess where i'm at

is i agree this makes us better for the next 2 years, but it doesn’t do so in any “real” way. By that I mean Marlon Byrd isn’t the solution to make us a world series contender or even that much closer to a playoff contender. He’s a marginal upgrade, perhaps taking us from say the 82-85 range to the 83-87 range. Either way we’re still pretty far off from being a legitimate 90+ win contender and we don’t have the roster room or financial flexibility to get that difference maker, so in the end it matters little

My bigger concern is that this pattern perpetuates. My biggest hope with the ownership change was that we’d develop an organizational philosophy that was consistent with the big market teams that have done well. Pour money into the draft, target big name difference makers in FA and maintain enough financial flexibility each year to be tactical in taking advantage of markets (either draft or FA)

This signing along with the Grabow signing is just another continuation in the long history of Cubs offseasons. Find mid-tier guys who have limited upside in their production, are well past their prime, and are generally coming off of career years

I was hoping for change and I’ve gotten a lot of the same. Does Byrd make us worse for this year? No. Is he going to under-perform his contract (possibly, but not certainly). But are there any actual signs of change in the organization? NO

Does the organization have any clue about where they really are in terms of competing? Or are they just going to keep doing this the next 2-3 years and throw unnecessary extensions at aging veterans and hold a continued reliance on FA to try to scrap at competing

Are we basically continuing the motto of “hope you win a bad division and get lucky in the playoffs”, because we’re not good enough to build a legitimate 95+ win powerhouse.

That’s my problem with this signing and this offseason. Its representative of zero change.

That's fine, but there weren't many top-tier players available.

I would have liked to have seen the Cubs be the team that stole Cliff Lee the way the Mariners did. Or to be the team that traded for Granderson. But those things happened in the past. Given the current context, the best player available that fit the Cubs need was Byrd. They got him without overpaying. That’s a good thing.

Sure, they could have just not signed him. But to be as good as they are after the signing, they’d likely would have had to spend more money on Byrd than they just did.

Comparing projections to market value, this is a good deal. And that’s a good thing. Sure, I’d rather them add a superstar (and would have liked it if they stole Holliday from the Cardinals). But they weren’t looking at corner OF’ers, so that was never really a discussion.

part of being able to get the big fishes

is maintaining the flexibility to do that

we couldn’t pursue a big market corner OF-er because of Fukudome/Soriano

In some way Byrd only clouds that picture for the next 2 years until Fukudome is off the books.

The article Dave Cameron just put out yesterday on fangraphs about the marginal value of a win compared to roster flexibility is the next thing the Cubs need to understand

Sure they may “win” on this contract (based on cost vs. production), but if the roster spot is tied up and prevents you from pursuing a real difference maker than you’re not really winning

you’re making marginal upgrades for an average team. In the end if the goal is to always be between 80-87 wins, we’re never going to win a world series

But we're not locked in to being just stuck at 85 wins.

This is a team not far removed from 95 wins. And what do you do if Soto and Soriano bounce back, while Rami and Lee keep doing what they do, and the pitchers keep having quality starts – but Fuld and Colvin totally fail in CF and there’s no one available by trade until you have to overpay on the trade market in mid-summer?

I’m not saying this team is likely to be a 95 win team. I’m saying it’s capable of being a playoff team and paying Byrd 3/15 is worth shoring things up in case it happens. That way at the deadline, we can go for the impact player instead of having to fix a hole.

where

could the impact player go? in your scenario?

i’ll just leave the idea we can improve by 8+ wins as an aside

IMO, 2B or SP... or closer.

How about you answer my question first.

What if Soto and Soriano did bounce back, but we find ourselves struggling to stay in first because of a huge hole at CF? What do you do?

You may have added some harder-to-sign talent in the draft, but are you ahead of the game if you have to trade better, closer prospects for a CF patch along the lines of Willy Taveras or Coco Crisp?

Or do you refuse to make that trade, despite being in first by a game, wanting to keep holding your prospects?

ok... in this scenario

i’d sign marlon byrd at midseason since no one else would have signed him :)

ok realistically… i think there’s less than a 10% chance of this scenario playing out, but my guess is you could allocate those resources you’re suggesting they allocate for an “impact player” at the deadline to fill that hole

What impact CF is going to be available?

The 2011 CF free agent list is depressing.

As for your question, we will probably want to add an impact starter, especially since so few are making it to free agency. Or, it would be great to be able to add a LH SS like S. Drew or J. Reyes – someone on a short-term deal, or who could be moved to 2B.

But in reality, you have to wait and see who’s out there and jump.

i was referring to someone

available via trade in CF, just like the “hypotheticals” you’re providing at SS

But who?

Both Drew and Reyes are nearing that prime trading point of 1.5 years left.

Sizemore’s got a year to go before then.

just throwing some names out

Denard Span
Ryan Sweeney
Michael Bourn
Cody Ross
BJ Upton???

Only two of those names are really any better than Byrd

and I doubt Span is going anywhere any time soon. Upton is a different story. If he’s actually available, I don’t think having Byrd on roster will keep us from considering Upton.

well...

everyone but Cody Ross finished ahead of Byrd in WAR last season

and Ross is a cheap commodity

"Cheap"

except for the part where we have to trade prospects, the very things you want to hold and develop…

well

remember you gave me a midseason scenario and asked how i’d fix it, my only option was trade

secondly i meant cheap in terms of what it would take to acquire him. Ross will be arb-eligible again for the Marlins next year after getting a bump to 2.2 million this year. They’re either going to have to re-negotiate or let him go before getting to arb, because they won’t let his salary get north of 3, which it would if they let him get to arb

The point is this...

if the Cubs have the opportunity to get a premiere outfielder, the Byrd contract isn’t untradeable, because it’s a good value. So he’s not really blocking anyone, including free agent acquisitions.

its a good value now

in 2011 it might not be….

because why would someone want a 1-2.0 WAR player for 6.5 million? EVEN if that’s the cost of a win in FA, who is looking for 1 WAR and can’t get it for less than that?

OK, so you trade him and throw in $1M or $2M

the point is, this isn’t a deal that’ll prevent the Cubs from going after anyone. The Silva deal is a burden, but that’s the only one that’s really horrible in the mid-tier range. And that has more to do with Bradley’s implosion than anything else.

You mean

Hendry’s implosion. Everyone and their mother knew there was a significant chance the “end” would be this way.

If the Cubs can regress by 15 wins

they certainly can improve by eight.

can

does not = likely

anything “can” happen

i like to operate in the world of probabilities

Playing baseball

isn’t the same thing as rolling dice or flipping a coin.

I’ll stick with probability on those. Probabilities when addressing the human condition is a joke.

Hahaha

Probabilities when addressing the human condition is a joke.

It’s extremely likely that this will be the dumbest thing I read today.

This is gonna be fun!

Green.

And why is that?

Sports isn’t like flipping a coin. (Although I didn’t articulate it as well as I could have.)

Not Bruce Froemming - January 2, 2010 reply

How is flipping a coin not a human behavior?

A coin flip is an action performed by a human being, so is swinging a bat.

Past results can always be used to predict future results. Every strategy employed in sports, business, science, and so on uses those past results to effectively predict future results.

Seriously, how is this hard to understand?

Wreckard - January 1, 2010 reply

If you flip a coin often enough

it’s going to come up heads or tails a prescribed number of times.

Predicting how a sports team is going to do isn’t nearly as fail safe. Injuries, weather, sub-par seasons all play a part.

Seriously, how is this hard to understand?

i'd prefer to dump the money

into draft and development, and only allocate funds on 1-2 year deals, FA contracts beyond 2 years for middling talent is exactly the problem this franchise makes over and over and over again

even the good signings we’ve made we’ve had to deal the player before the 3rd year to clear payroll room

What he said.

So would I

although I believe we could do both—the draft isn’t that expensive compared to FA.

And that's precisely the point.

We’ve heard the ML roster budget. We have no idea what the development budget is. That budget could be increased. And there’s really only so much you can increase it there. We have to wait and see how that money is spent or not spent in the year ahead.

why

do people continue to assume these budgets have no impact on one another

it makes no sense

No one is saying

they don’t impact each other, but what would you put an extra $5 million in the draft into this season?

There just aren’t that many opportunities for “overdraft” bonuses. Sure, you could draft a bunch of guys in the tenth round who have third round talent and offer them first round money to skip college, but then you’re overpaying just as much as you would in the FA market. Same thing goes for the Caribbean or Asian players. The Cubs have gotten the guys they wanted in both markets. We gave a ton of money to Hak-Ju Lee and Logan Watkins and together they were less than $2 million.

I don’t think we’ve been hurting in international signings or overdraft bonuses. We’ve gotten the players we wanted.

its not 5 million this year

its 15 million over the next 3 years

and i’m not saying WE HAVE TO spend it there either, i’d just rather allow the flexibility to try to make impactful moves rather than ones that make an 82 win team and 84-85 win team. In the end… we’re still average

There are two points being made here

and neither has anything to do with how the budgets impact each other.

Josh has already made the point that you can’t add that much to the budget for pre-ML talent.

The other point is that we have no idea what Hendry’s pre-ML talent budget is. When Ricketts decided that the ML payroll would go up only mildly, that may well have been because he doubled the development budget.

The Cubs have already improved in that area...

not saying they should spend more money there, but they have improved their drafting and player development parts of the organization. And that’ll save them some money in the near future.

we have improved

but we’re still FAR away from the elite organizations in terms of depth and front line talent

why not make that the focus of getting better rather than making middling moves in FA for a team that is not a legitimate world series contender without a significant amount of luck

I'd agree with that.

I just think you’re overstating the effect that Byrd’s contract (and those like it) are having on the team.

I’d agree that Hendry overpays for middle relievers. But most of his mid-tier position players have given a decent return.

Agreed

But I think the problem has been more one of who we sign rather than how much money we spend.

I’d have to say no one is outspending us in Asia right now—the Koreans and Taiwanese players we’ve been signing, I’d put up against any franchise’s Asian prospects.

Why is this a mutually exclusive thing

The Cubs have a pretty good farm system, and have developed a number of quality major league players in recent years.

There’s this odd romanticizing of small-market teams that goes on around here, when in fact the Cubs are not and will never be a small-market team. They should absolutely have one of the top 3 budgets in baseball – They’re one of the 3 most popular teams in the game.

Obviously the Cubs need to be spending their money a little bit better – but there have really only been 2 onerous contracts in the last 5 years to speak of, both of which are handicapping the team this season. This is not an example of a bad contract – it’s chump change, really a bargain for a pretty good role player who fits the Cubs needs extremely well.

Complaining about the Cubs budget after a cheap signing like this is like complaining about the commercialization of Christmas when a coworker hands you a candy cane.

if you think

there have only been 2 bad contracts you’re mistaken

many of the mistakes the Cubs have made have been on smaller deals like this that they then have to pay other teams to take on either with players or salary

I said 2 particularly onerous contracts

If you add up all the Aaron Miles and Joey Gathrights that Hendry has signed in the last 5 years, the total combined values of all of their contracts barely equal what Soriano will make this year. Never mind the fact that none of those signings are affecting us this year – they’re all off the books.

The idea that this team is somehow compromised by a handful of minor signings here and there over the last few years is as ludicrous as the idea that Byrd’s salary should have gone to player development instead.

you have no concept

then of the accretive value of small mistakes

Amazing how many of us

are just clueless to you.

I'm glad I'm not the only one

who often finds DCF obtuse at times, even though I don’t doubt his overall acumen.

do you want me to go into it more?

basically this entire offseason was spent correcting the “small mistakes” made last offseason

in that time we may have corrected those small mistakes but we’ve lost TIME on our side. Our core has aged 2 years and our likelihood of contending has decreased.

These small mistakes that people are willing to write off have accretive value because of the loss of time and the need to fix those mistakes

Maybe we understand the concept

but disagree about the magnitude of the problem.

Not everyone who disagrees with you fails to understand you.

that's fair

although the poster above didn’t show an understanding with this statement:

The idea that this team is somehow compromised by a handful of minor signings here and there over the last few years is as ludicrous as the idea that Byrd’s salary should have gone to player development instead.

How many of those are currently on the roster?

I count 3, including Silva. The Cubs are paying out $32M over the next two seasons, and another $6.5M in 2012. That $16M is a lot, but it’s not going to prevent the Cubs from going after big-name free agents at the trade deadline or next offseason, especially because most of that money comes off the books after 2011.

we lost 2 years

of the team’s window because of those “small mistakes”

that TIME is a significant loss and the opportunity loss is significant in these instances as well

True.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not “the world is full of blue roses” here. I just think this signing was the best move Hendry could have made given the current market and the need for a CF’er. And I don’t think it’s that big of a deal in the long term.

i understand

where you’re coming from and i don’t disagree (necessarily)

my problem is the continued pattern in how we operate

no one seems to be concerned about this though but me

You're not the only one.

To be sure. I think the Cubs have systemic issues that need to be addressed to get us where we want to be on a consistent, long-term basis.

I don’t think, however, that even with those issues, we’re incapable of still reaching the playoffs in the short term. We’re just making it harder on ourselves than we need to.

And I think people DCF views as opposing what he says

also believe the Cubs have places they can improve.

The difference is precisely at a question which is dividing us for two reasons – 1a) how likely is it that we make the playoffs, 1b) how likely is it that we can succeed in the playoffs, and 2) how likely does it need to be to spend 10-20 M to try and get there?

DCF is clear in saying that he doesn’t think it’s likely enough on 1b. I’d be interested in hearing what he thinks about 2. I’d also suggest that Ricketts in his first year might be more sensitive about #2 than he will be going forward.

on 2

i’m kind of confused by the question

is it how likely would we be able to succeed in the playoffs if 10-20 million in payroll were added?

it obviously depends on who the money was spent on, but yes i suppose it would increase our chances somewhat. The problem is we don’t have much roster flexibility and there isn’t much available talent left. Getting a guy like Valverde would help the bullpen depth some, but the only other place we could make significant upgrades would be 2B and SP. Maybe a guy like Hudson would help out and Sheets?

Yeah I think that would change my outlook a little, but i’d also be concerned about how much those guys committ to the books beyond 2010 (which is my big focus right now)

I think if we added Valverde, Sheets, Hudson that would probably get us back to closer to the 90 win threshold and we’d have enough talent i could see us getting lucky against someone in a short series

What I'm asking - (late here for me, sorry for the lack of clarity)

is how likely the base level team needs to make the playoffs for you to sign on spending 10 or 20 M more to augment the team.

tough question to answer

because it has a lot of variables

who is the money being spent on?

how long are the contracts committed?

what is the added revenue from playoff games?

In general I believe in the idea of marginal values of wins. Once you get into the high 80’s as your base it begins to make a lot of sense to spend significantly for wins

when you’re in the low-mid 80’s it makes a lot less sense, in the 70’s it makes no sense, etc…

but we've totally blocked ourself out of bidding on LeBron and Wade in 2010 ;)

Good - neither of them can hit breaking balls...

This isn't something you've exactly illustrated here.

All you’ve said is that these small mistakes have cost us “time” (even though we’ve only missed the playoffs once in the last 3 years). You seem to be saying that the Byrd signing is somehow illustrative of these “small mistakes” even though it’s the exact opposite of, say, the Aaron Miles signing – this isn’t a guy being overpaid after a career year, it’s a guy being underpaid after 3 above average years.

You can hem and haw and blame 2009 on small mistakes, but the contribution in 2009 of those small mistakes pales in comparison to a perfect storm of injuries and career worst years.

This is a good signing that makes the Cubs 2-4 wins better this season for an extremely reasonable amount of money.

i see your point

I’m taking into account 2010 into my frustration because i generally don’t think we’re a contender. I think the window should’ve been 2007-2010 based on what Hendry was trying to do and I think by making a number of small mistakes the window closed by 2 years because not only did we not augment ourselves for the latter years of the window (by holding onto necessary pieces like Pie), but we made the club worse in the immediate term

I don’t disagree that Byrd is going to make the Cubs better (4 wins better seems an exaggeration as he’s probably only 1-2 wins better than Sam Fuld as a player), but i question how “worth it” it is

I also am probably less optimistic on the season than most, I think we’re now an 84-87 win team with a lot of depth issues since most of our minor league talent is a year away

but i understand where it comes across as lumping Byrd into the Miles group, which isn’t fair. We have very little upside in the signing but not much downside either, i just am opposed to the 3rd year and generally frustrated as i was hoping to see a change in philosophy and less reliance on FA

so far the offseason has been like every other offseason

Right now an 87-win team could win the central.

I agree that’s a pretty realistic projection for the Cubs, but the 2010 Central looks pretty weak right now. Even if the Cardinals do manage to sign Holiday, they’ve lost their 3rd starter and replaced him with yet another huge injury risk.

The 4 is a bit high, I admit, but that comes not only from Byrd’s 2 wins above Fuld but also the net gain of putting Fukudome in right. So the marginal gain could be 30-some runs on defense, which is significant.

The fact is that we’re committed to a win-now philosophy for 2010 (which a team of our budget should be every year) so this is the right move for a team that should be able to contend next year.

gotten into this before with others

but i view contending for a bad division and contending for a world series as two very different things

i think one is realistic with some good luck, i think the other is an absolute pipe dream

Tha playoffs are a crapshoot

The 2006 World Series is a pretty strong counterpoint to your contention. The best team doesn’t always win, and you can’t win if you don’t get there first.

not as much of a crapshoot

as people suggest…. the 2006 world series is a giant anomaly in the big picture. There are very few sub-90 win world series champs

There also aren't that many sub-90 win playoff teams.

aldimond - January 1, 2010 reply

If they win the division, getting to the WS is a question of two pitchers getting hot

Ted Lilly takes offense at that last part.

Exactly

It’s another “patch a hole” on a problem that falls into JH’s short-term, flawed philosophy. I’m one who can’t believe Ricketts signed off on this deal. So, I guess what he said about winning a WS through development was just lip service.

There are few we can use

Resigning Lee would be the best IMO option at first after the Cards resign Pujols. Mauer will have so much competition we can say goodbye to that one. I’d love Beckett though.

That's what a lot of NBA teams are doing (I know it's not exactly the same).

But in this situation, I wouldn’t be opposed to waiting to fill the big holes until there’s a legitimate player available. My position this whole time has been start with a Fuld/Johnson platoon (assuming you can get him back cheap and for 1 year, maybe with an option). If that fails miserably, check in around the deadline for any teams that are worse off than the Cubs and try and trade for a CF.

without this signing...

the Cubs would be the team looking to trade impending free agents, as they’d struggle to contend.

you think Marlon Byrd is THAT big of a difference maker?

Marlon Byrd!?!?!?!

a 2.0 WAR player?

this is marlon byrd we’re talking about

Sure!

He’s averaged 2.8 WAR the last 3 seasons. He’s projected to provide league-average defense at a premium defensive position and have above-average offensive stats. At worst, he’s an average ballplayer. Average ballplayers are 2 wins above average. He should be better than that. And if he regresses at 0.5 WAR/year, he’ll still be a 1-win ballplayer in 2012. Overpaid, but not by that much… and that’s being conservative.

I agree with my Big Green brother here…

This signing shows no signs of an organizational sea-change.

leothelip - December 31, 2009 reply

in order to be upset about that

you have to think that one is necessary. Not everyone agrees that the Cubs need to completely change the way they do business.

As noted elsewhere, the biggest gain is moving Fukudome back to RF

or freeing up a RH-hitting OF to platoon with Fukudome (40 games or so). Without Byrd, Johnson or his replacement was going to be committed to CF, leaving no one to spell Fukudome against LHP.

Yes, they had to trade DeRosa...

but it’s not like they “dumped” his contract on another team and got nothing in return. They got 3 good minor league arms that could help us as soon as this season.

Just because a team decides to trade someone to clear payroll space doesn’t mean his contract is a bad thing.

I think Gaub will be our LOOGY

this season.

+1

I hope so.

He'd be a better LOOGY if

he was better at getting left-handers out.

All I was trying to show you is that smaller contracts like this one..

have clearly limited Hendry’s ability to make his desired move. DeRosa was traded for one reason: to clear enough salary to sign Bradley. The fact that Hendry got 3 decent prospects out of the deal was admirable. But DeRosa would have been a Cub last year if Hendry had the money for him and Bradley.

But it didn't stop him from getting Bradley.

having these contracts on the books isn’t a problem if you can move them, and Hendry has shown the ability to do that.

Even in extreme cases where the Cubs and the player have totally trashed the player’s value (Sosa, Hundley, Bradley) Hendry has moved the contracts and gotten decent returns. And no, Silva isn’t a decent return… but Hendry freed up money in that one. Admirable, given the context.

I wasn't aware it was sound strategy...

to bank on being able to trade mediocre, aging players. The bottom line in the DeRo situation is his contract was preventing us from signing another FA. Much like Byrd could potentially do the same. Just because Hendry might have to suck it up and eat some salary (taking the high road and avoiding a fat joke here) or get some junk in return doesn’t mean Byrd’s contract worked out alright in the end.

Getting 3 decent prospects back for DeRo was only possible because he had a good year for the Cubs. What if Byrd just absolutely tanks it in year 2?

He's an average player, at worst.

Average players are worth $6M/season in this down economy and $10M in an economy that recovers. So while you don’t plan to build your team around them, signing them to contracts like this one is smart as long as you have above-average players elsewhere and you’re replacing below-average players (like Fuld) by signing them.

So let me ask you this:

was signing DeRosa a mistake? Because that’s the comp you’re making. The Cubs got two years of excellent production out of him, and then turned that into more years of cost-controlled relief arms. That’s an EXCELLENT deal, and I’d be ecstatic if this deal turned out that well.

The bottom line is that the DeRosa contract didn’t prevent anyone from getting signed. Sure, his salary wasn’t something the Cubs wanted to pay anymore, but that had as much to do with having cheaper in-house options available as much as DeRosa’s deal. It was perceived to be under market value at that point, and because of that the Cubs ended up getting a good return on their investment.

It's all about maintaining that perspective

When DeRosa was signed people were upset because they thought the Cubs wouldn’t have enough money left to go after Soriano and Zito.

Marlon Byrd is not going to change this franchise one way or the other. He’ll be a slightly above replacement player, role-player who will ideally contribute to a winning team over the next couple of years.

he's well above replacement level.

he’s slightly above average, which is 2-wins better than replacement. That’s a lot. The difference between Byrd and a replacement-level player is similar to the difference between Byrd and Matt Holliday.

Well, I suppose that increases the validity of my point then.

Yup.

You’re right on. This is a good deal.

I agree with everything else you said.

So... DeRosa's greatest

value was locking down cash so Jimbo couldn’t chase Zito? I’m okay with that as well.

Again with this.

We had the money for DeRosa – most of it went to Aaron Miles, who unlike DeRosa was a switch-hitter.

DeRosa was gone the moment Fontenot ended the 2008 season with a .900+ OPS. And that’s because Jim Hendry wasn’t stuck on his guy, wasn’t stuck on free agency, but went with an unproven “young” guy in Mike Fontenot.

and then when DeRosa walked away for no return as a FA

people would be hanging Hendry for not trading him to get anything in return.

not just to clear payroll

but to sell high instead of get no return as a FA walk away

no

they moved DeRosa because he was one of the few people who could be moved and traded high on.

exactly

they traded high for once instead of trading low or losing out 100%

And for that

Hendry got skewered. Can’t win.

too many will rip Hendry

like they did Krause with the Bulls. Neither can win even when they win in the eyes of many.

Keep in mind they moved DeRosa

Because nobody else was available to get rid of. You aren’t going to trade Lee and Ramirez and Z and Lilly. Marquis had already been traded. Dempster had just been re-signed/extended. Soriano was/is untradeable. Who else with a big contract could you have gotten rid of?

Musicdude10 - December 31, 2009 reply

Schwa,

I think what you’re failing to see that the number of bad contracts is why DeRosa’s money had to be moved. Two years from now if Hendry/the future GM don’t make the same mistakes they will have the flexibility to deal with this contract.

TCobb1911 - December 31, 2009 reply

DeRosa was moved

because he’d had a career year, he didn’t have an NTC, and Hendry & Piniella were convinced that Fontenot could be a full-time 2B.

Exactly.

Hendry was selling high, something that people here constantly accuse him of failing to do.

It’s distinctly possible that he not only predicted Fontenot would have a better season (which he didn’t) but that he also anticipated a large regression from Derosa (which did happen).

You don't get credit

for selling high when you sell someone you still very much need for some guys you don’t.

I don’t think DeRosa is the savior, but it didn’t take hindsight to see that trading away DeRosa to free up room for Bradley is one of Hendry’s worst decisions of his GM tenure. I don’t know if the Cubs would have contended last year (they still had bad seasons from some key players), but I am quite certain they would have been a better team.

so

even though we had Miles and Fontenot, Hendry should have anticipated Rami going down for 60+ days? I’m not saying Miles did well, because he didn’t, but remember what the conventional wisdom was at the time — Miles was a little version of DeRosa, and Fontenot was going to excel.

Derosa was only worth 1.7 wins last year

That’s only a half a win better than Bradley.

I’m not sure how you can look at his numbers for 2009 and say that Hendry didn’t make the right move.

DeRomantics live on

::sigh::

Never seen anything like it

and I’ve been a Cubs fan almost 40 years.

do you think I can get a custom jersey with DeRomantics

printed on it and a #7 ?

cooliogirl47 - December 31, 2009 reply

You probably can.

If you do, send us a photo.

Not Bruce Froemming - January 1, 2010 reply

I still think the DeRomantics'

best song was “What I Like About You.”

LOL

I liked that song, too. DeRo must have been pretty precocious to sing it, though: it came out when he was four.

Not Bruce Froemming - January 1, 2010 reply

Well, is that a surprise?

I mean, he’s DeRo, after all, a child prodigy in everything. :-)

I ordered it.....

had to do it with all caps and I knocked the s off at the end, I didnt want it to sound too much like the band…will send pic if I figure out how. hehehe :D

cooliogirl47 - January 7, 2010 reply

Mark DeRosa was outhit by Mike Fontenot v. RHP

and his defense was so bad at 2B that two clubs refused to play him there (while Fonty’s remained above average). Consider that the Indians preferred playing Johnny Peralta at SS and a terrific defensive SS in Asdrubal Cabrera at 2B instead of playing Cabrera at SS, Peralta at 3B (where he’s at now that DeRosa’s gone) and DeRosa at 2B.

To say

it didn’t take hindsight to see that trading away DeRosa to free up room for Bradley is one of Hendry’s worst decisions of his GM tenure.

is way off base.

I was expecting something more like 2/12, so 3/13 isn't particularly distasteful

Best case to me is that by the third year, he’s a somewhat overpaid fourth OF. Soriano will need plenty of rest, and hopefully we’ll have one of our own kids in CF by then, who can be brought along more slowly with a competent backup on hand. But I really hope there’s more of an offensive force playing RF in 2012 than Marlon Byrd.

davidalanu - December 31, 2009 reply

This deal isn't even in the same ballpark as the Fukudome mistake.

I mean, worst case, Byrd puts up sub-Dome numbers and winds up a 4th or 5th OF. Fortunately, his average annual salary isn’t that much more than we were paying Henry Blanco.

I don’t like this deal, by any means, but I find it difficult to really care too much about it, in light of the more hideous mistakes this organization has been piling up lately. I guess you could say that I’m “resigned” to things like this happening – the team is spending all of their resources hoping to get lucky and tread water.

Also in the Levine article

A rumor that the Cubs are talking to Toronto about relievers. Possible target, Jason Frasor, who is a Chicago native, pitched at SIU, and has had a few decent season (mixed in with a BB debacle in 2008). In 2009, he saved 11 games. Sounds like the kind of guy Hendry has been after. He would be able to close if necessary, but isn’t expecting it, so he won’t pout on the bench. He is a veteran and would like to play in Chicago (assumedly).

I’d look for the Cubs to send a younger guy like Jeff Stevens or Justin Berg to Toronto. Any more than that, and it wouldn’t be worth it.

I just don't see the point.

Berg can do what Frasor can, cheaper.

frasor

is a FAR better reliever than Berg…

Frasor is a serviceable middle reliever...

… who will cost quite a bit more than Berg, who likely will become… a serviceable middle reliever.

Frasor

made 1.45 million last year and was a 1.4 WAR reliever, worth 6.3 million

he’s a better pitcher than Grabow, by like… a lot

This discussion isn't about Grabow.

It’s about whether Berg can do what Frasor can. I believe he can. You don’t.

so you think berg

is better than Grabow?

cause that’s kind of my point….

That's not what we're discussing here.

ok

but if Frasor is far greater than Grabow and making far less

then… follow me here…

If Berg isn’t as good as Grabow, he can’t be as good as frasor, because frasor is far greater than grabow

Grabow being left-handed

Boosts his value to us despite of his performance

so a bad LH

is better than a good RH….

perhaps if there was a severe split, but Grabow doesn’t have one and with Grabow being referenced as our “setup” man it doesn’t matter much what hand he throws with since he’s not a LOOGY

I've been pro Byrd but the third year isn't good.

cubswynn - December 31, 2009 via mobile reply

Hendry has had his Peter Griffin moment of the offseason

“Byrd, Byrd, Byrd is the word.”

Now he’s apparently moving on to the theme from “Frasor.”

Thanks for putting that in my head

….

Frasor? I barely know her!

My main concerns are...

1) at 245 lbs at 32 years old, he’ll be no longer capable of fielding the CF position by 35.

2) his home/away splits are VERY different. Away from Texas the last three years Byrd has OPSed only .742. That doesn’t give me confidence.

That is so heavy

For being 6 foot.

Well

I think he will put up some great numbers at Wrigley. Let’s hope he can turn around his road woes, though.

And when Kosuke’s contract is up couldn’t he patrol right on the final year of his contract?

I'm not sure about "great" numbers at Wrigley...

It’s less of a hitter’s park than Arlington. And the fact that he did so poorly on the road makes me wary that we’re overpaying for an average player who happened to put up fat numbers in a hitter’s park.

I dunno.

He might be an average player but I think he’s getting paid to be average. No problem with that. When we lost out on Granderson I don’t think there were any other options that were better, IMO.

Except maybe Felix Pie.

The point is there weren't any better options on the free agent market.

Granderson was a better option, but the Cubs didn’t get him. And they could still go get another OF’er via trade.

Actually...

Wrigley is a better hitter’s park than Arlington.
Link

fsuapollo - December 31, 2009 reply

he's got

a .206 average at Wrigley.

I suppose

tho, that he hasn’t played there much.

34 at-bats.

7-for-34, all singles, also five walks.

r u serious...

you’re quoting a 34 AB sample?

206 batting average

at Wrigley is terrible .. what a mistake of a signing . overweight CF who has a terrible BA away from hitter fiendly ballpark . And 3 years .. What is Hendry thinking signing Byrd for three years when there was no competion from another team signing him ..

CUBFANINAZ - December 31, 2009 reply

If you read the comments,

you would see that the BA was in VERY limited AB’s.

Dude......

You can probably find that ANY of the Cubs have hit less than or equal to .206 in a 34 AB stint-remember when Lee was in a slump? Guarantee Soriano has………wouldn’t be surprised if Rami has too……….

jballgame - December 31, 2009 reply

against Cubs pitching

now he will see others pitchers at WF

Are Height and Weight from rookie year?

I thought baseball stuck with Height and Weight from the player’s rookie season? In the media guide?

Yeah, but...

Seattle, Oakland, and Anaheim aren’t exactly hitter havens though. That’s where he, of course, has played a lot of his road games.

I think the splits thing with Texas hitters is overrated.

Expected lineup with current players?

I’d say Fukudome, Theriot, Lee, Ramirez, Byrd, Soriano, Baker/Fontenot, Soto.
Although I’d expect to see Soto work his way up as the season goes on. And I’d rather see Theriot batting 8th, with the second basemen in the two-hole.

I won't be surprised to see

Theriot Byrd Lee Rami Dome Sori Soto Baker/Fontenot

I'd like to see Fukudome and Theriot flipped there.

theriot batting 5th?

No, Theriot batting 8th, Fukudome leadoff.

That’s what I’d like, too.

Yeah, that's what I meant.

I read the lineup wrong.

i almost say screw it and put fonzie back there

1. Fonz, Dome, Lee, Rammy, Byrd, Soto, 2B, SS

Anti-rec'd

Those days are done. For good.

No

I think me meant Theriot 1 Fuku 2

I think you meant something more like:

Dome
Byrd
Lee
Rami
Sori
Soto
Baker/Fonty
Riot

yeah, that's it.

Theriot’s a free swinger that can still find a way to get on base, had no power, and is a horrid baserunner. Bat him 8th.

And I'd agree with this line-up.

Thoughts on pushing this LaRussa style

and having Theriot’s OBP in a psuedo lead off spot in 9th. If Dome is the leadoff, he has the skills to bunt players over.

byrd isn't a two hitter.

I’d probably say like 6

If you can get him back to his 2008 OBP

he and Dome would put a lot of guys on base in front of Sori, Lee, and Rami.

He did the same thing at Theriot

Both their OBP took a hit in 2009 while their slugging rose compared to 2008. Byrd also struck out more and walked less in 2009.

i think theriot is perfect for 2 though.

idk we’ll find out spring training i guess

Theriot GIDPs and CSs too much for me

at the top of the order. I also like my #2 hitter to have more pop.

GIDP's at the top of the order...

Just looking at GIDP alone, wouldn’t it make sense to want a guy who’s going to hit into a lot of those batting 2nd rather than lower in the order? I gotta think that aside from the leadoff man and perhaps the pitcher, the 2 hitter will have the fewest at bats with a runner on first. Just my guess though, I could be wrong.

a GIDP hurts more in front of Derrek Lee and Aramis Ramirez

than in front of Ted Lilly.

Whoa Whoa Whoa.

Lord Theodore does not appreciate your implication that he’s anything but a force with the bat.

Oops

I meant Randy Wells.

Lilly forgives you

Good point.

I was thinking of it more in terms of the idea that whoever hits 5th, 6th, etc will have more Lee’s and Ramirez’s on base ahead of him to turn into two outs.

BucknerKongCardenal - December 31, 2009 reply

Rec'd

For more pop batting second.

Baker or Byrd at this point, whoever hits fastballs better.

no way.

no power, horrid baserunner, hacktastic plate approach, but decent contact skills. Bat him 8th.

+1

I think Sori would be fine 5th. Hopefully Rudy helps him regain his previous success.

That would be a fairly awful top of the order

Unless we’re going by the “OBP at the top of the order” doesn’t matter approach.

Yeah

I would think that would be the lineup. I would swap Theriot and Baker but I doubt Lou will.

This is less money per year than I expected.

I didn’t want to go three years, but at this price, it’s not so bad. Marlon Byrd has reverse splits, hitting RHP better than LHP, so he was a better fit for us than Mike Cameron, and Cameron was paid 50% more than this.

Think of it this way. Many of you were ready to pay Reed Johnson 4 M a year. Marlon Byrd is better than Reed – able to hit both RHP and LHP, and well worth 1 M more. If in the last year, he’s an overpaid 4th OF, he’s not THAT overpaid.

best post i have read in this debate

rec’d. You summed up my stance. I am happy with this. Sure i dont like three years but he is a pretty solid ballplayer. And dont forget Marlon was a big time prospect. This talent didnt jsut appear overnight.

Good point re: prospecthood

BA’s #26 in 2002. Hendry has had success in grabbing former top prospects who had disappointed – Aramis Ramirez, Matt Clement, etc.

Thank you.

I agree with you on almost every topic. Are you my long lost brother or something?

I can't be your long lost brother.

You are Unique.

LOL.

Sister then.

You both have a U in your BCB names

they are the same person

with two accounts

/sarcasm

Rec'd

Totally agree. I’m not enamored with the deal, but at an average of 5 per, it make Byrd reasonably acceptable piece of an outfield rotation for the next few years.

MannyAlexander - December 31, 2009 reply

rec'd

DC Cubbie - December 31, 2009 reply

I prefer Reed simply out of familiarity

Interestingly though Baseball Reference lists Reed and the player most similar to Marlon Byrd
http://www.baseball-reference.com/friv/scomp_bat.cgi?I=byrdma01:Marlon%20Byrd&st=career&compage=&age=

El Borto - December 31, 2009 reply

Heh, on Baseball-reference.com, Marlon Byrd’s most similar hitter is…(drumroll please)…

Reed Johnson.

Wasn't this in another post?

Yes.

But it’s a useful comment here, too.

But it doesn't need a drumroll

if it is still fresh in most our minds.

LOL

How about this?

At first I thought you were failing at a drumroll

then I found the humor. Very nice.

This discussion needs more...

… RIMSHOTS!

I’ve got a fever and the only cure are more rimshots!

No, this discussion needs more COWBELL!

Well fine.

If everyone wants to keep doing this, let’s look at it.
Byrd’s 2010 projection .279/.340/.438
Reed’s 2010 projection .272/.336/.395

Byrd’s career CF defense UZR/150 0.0
Reed’s career CF defense UZR/150 -14.8

Byrd’s career #s v. RHP.282/.342/.416
Reed’s career #s v. RHP .265/.324/.383

Byrd’s 2009 #s v. RHP .300/.344/.491
Reed’s 2009 #s v. RHP .206/.278/.351

It’s really not even appropriate to say that Reed Johnson is the poor man’s Byrd. Reed is a short side platoon corner OF stretched too far in center. Marlon Byrd is now the Cubs’ best hitter v. RHP by projection.

I never heard that before

jk

El Borto - December 31, 2009 reply

Good post

And anybody complaining about Byrd’s age at the end of the contract better not have been wanting 35-year-old DeRosa to come back.

This is a good signing, or at least it should be. I’m not jumping over the Sears Tower about it, but Byrd will be better than a Fuld/Johnson platoon.

No one was asking a 35-year-old DeRosa to play center field.

But no one is asking Byrd to do that!

Just because he’s playing CF NEXT season doesn’t mean the team plans to play him there for the entirety of his contract, you know…

OK, point taken.

We'll deal with 2012 when we're on the doorstep of it

By then, if the Cubs have a World Series under their belts, I wouldn’t care if they plucked Jerry Morales out of a retirement home and put HIM in CF.

Now, on that I am in 100% agreement with you.

i hear he only wants

a 12 year $60m deal with a NTC

doofus cubs guy - December 31, 2009 reply

two world series

truth police...

Marlon Byrd has reverse splits, hitting RHP better than LHP,

Nope: career OPS+ platoon splits (vs. RHP/LHP)

Byrd (99/101)

Busted.

Revised:
Byrd has reverse splits the past two years.

Green it

Ryno Runner - December 31, 2009 reply

rec'd

too bad i cannot double rec a comment

Ugh.

dromain67 - December 31, 2009 reply

Can you be more specific?

Man we are gonna SUUUUUUUCK in 2010.

I’m really preparing myself to have a bad team for the next 2-3 years. Old cranky & creaky guys that are overpaid and underperform.

Are you being serious?

Just do like Lou does

Make a face, throw your arms up and think “Look, what do you want me to do”. Thats where I am at. Not real excited about the structure but ready for baseball none the less. Its kind of like putting a puzzle together thats been under the kids bed for a few years. Maybe all the pieces will be there maybe not. At least it killed a few hours…..

truelinkfence - December 31, 2009 reply

This is a shoring up move.

It doesn’t make or break anything. But it gives this core a chance to bounce back and contend. A lot of our 2-3 year prognostication lies on the shoulders of Soto, I think. If he can bounce back to being a .850+ OPS guy, it covers a multitude of less than optimal contracts elsewhere.

Soto and Soriano

are the key to this team contending for a playoff spot or struggling to be a .500 ballclub.

As much as I like both of them...

That’s far more of a rolling of the dice than I’d like…

Well it's not totally a rolling of the dice.

Hopefully the Cubs management has done everything they can to impress on Soto the need for training and self-discipline. Hopefully the Cubs medical team has done everything they can to help Soriano in his recovery. Because we don’t know what they’re doing, it’s dice rolling to fantasy players and the like. But the Cubs should know where the health levels of those two players are and they can impact those things to a degree.

Hope both strategies work out, and that they get someone working with Zambrano to improve his focus

They probably need Z and one other pitcher getting hot to be a factor in the playoffs, unless you expect a top starter to come in at the deadline.

you forgot prayer

because apparently that’s a large portion of the “plan” as well

hope and pray we get lucky enough to win 90 games and then hope and pray we can contend with the 100 win ballclubs that are legitimate contenders like the yankees

We can compete with anyone in a 7-game series.

Don’t worry about the Yankees. Worry about the Carindals… and pray someone swoops in to sign Holliday. Then the Cubs will be in good shape.

Halladay will tear us apart in a 5 game series if we take WC.

IIRC, the Cubs are 2-0 vs. Halladay in recent years

Halladay shut down the Cubs at Wrigley, but Sergio Mitre pitched the game of his life and the Cubs won 2-0 or 1-0 (can’t remember which).

In 2008 in Toronto, the Cubs scored six off Doc in the first inning, including a grand slam by Reed Johnson. I was there for that one.

Oh, wait, you meant Holliday

I’ll reserve judgment on that, thank you.

No, I meant Roy. We wouldn't face the Cards in the NLDS

That is somewhat reassuring

But the fact that it is the playoffs, and we would have to face him twice doesn’t look good. I hope we take the Central and get to face the Dodgers.

maybe so

but those Blue Jays are not even close to holding the jock strap in terms of talent as the Phillies he is now with

True enough

Might have made a difference in the Mitre game; not sure about the other one.

regardless

prayer is still our strategy

holliday’s going to sign with the Cards and we’re going to be 5 wins or so behind them based on projections

then we can pray more to catch them

Fine.

But they’re one over-producing season closer to the playoff now. If they needed two guys to overproduce before, now they only need one. That’s worth it, and I don’t think Hendry is quite done yet.

I don't like projections, either in politics or baseball, DCF

i wasn't posting directly to you

nbf

:)

santoswoodenlegs - December 31, 2009 reply

bingo

you are correct shawn, They have to produce.

Grockcubs - December 31, 2009 reply

Does anyone know if Soto is doing road work in the mountains of Arizona yet?

cubnational - December 31, 2009 reply

please tell me how this deal makes the team worse in 2010

DC Cubbie - December 31, 2009 reply

because Milton Bradley is gone.

I like this deal.

Byrd can take over for Fukudome in RF when his contract ends. At that point, Brett Jackson may be ready to be the Cubs everyday CF’er. 3 years isn’t too bad, and it’s not a lot of money. If he’s making $5 or $6 or even $7 at that point, he won’t have to produce much more than 1 win over replacement to be worth the contract. He should be capable of that, even at the age of 35.

Also, we have to keep in mind that this was the best option available. Byrd is much better than Ankiel and miles better than Pods. This is something to celebrate, given the current context.

Rec'd

He he,

Byrd’s better than Pods by the mere fact he has been a CF by trade.

saying

Byrd is better than Pods is like saying “she was the pretty troll”

hudson, cabrera, or felipe lopez

cubs need one of these three

i would take any of them on a 1 year deal... Hopefully Lopez

No way

3 years, more backloading.

No on Cabrera

and I’m not sure Hudson is THAT much better than Baker. But I would kick the tires on Lopez.

orlando hudson is an all-star, gold glover.

jeff baker had a good second half last year. However, i think baker would be a good backup second baseman. Fontenot doesn’t cut it.

Have you guys looked at his home vs away splits?

FlimtotheFlam - December 31, 2009 reply

Yes.

Not that severe, actually.

Seem large to me

09 Home: .873 OPS
09 Away: .740 OPS
08 Home: .911
08 Away: .772
07 Home: .916
07 Away: .715

FlimtotheFlam - December 31, 2009 reply

Seems to be getting better.

They are not that bad

don’t understand why folks keep pointing to them

DC Cubbie - December 31, 2009 reply

For those of you against this deal...

what would you prefer at this point? Ankiel? Scotty Pods?

Sure, you could say “I’d prefer we trade for Ellsbury!!!!” But you know what? That’s still an option. If they trade for him, or Rajai Davis, or some other slick-fielding CF’er, they can move Byrd into a super-4th OF role. He’d platoon with Fukudome, rest Soriano in LF, be the first bat off the bench, and play CF from time to time.

Rec'd

AGAIN. Your 2 for 2.

i really am not a fan of ellsbury

Ankiel, absolutely.

Especially if we’re committing three years to one of these guys.

Ankiel

Agreed…I liked his upside more than the others…although like others, I am okay with this Byrd deal…

Sure, he's got upside

But he’s also got major bust potential. He turns 30 next year and his OPS+ was 76 last year. He’s really only had one good year as a hitter and one terrible one. I wouldn’t risk CF on him.

Hmm...

2007 OPS+: 120
2008 OPS:+ 119
2009 OPS+: 76

One of those years he ran headfirst into a wall and was almost paralyzed. Care to guess which one? Personally, I think that had a big effect on his struggles last year. I look for him to bounce back and have a good year.

For Ankiel's sake

I hope he does bounce back. He fought hard to get here in the first place. But his approach at the plate is also a factor. It’s hard to swing at so much and have lasting success.

isnt that...

kind of marlon byrd’s issue…

I would rather have had Fuld/Johnson...

… and spend the money elsewhere.

Where elsewhere?

I'm with Al on this one

And I would have seen if I could get Valverde for under $10M/yr. If not, then put it towards Chapman. If we get outbid there, then keep the money for a mid-season acquisition.

Well at 5 M

we might not be out of the running for Chapman – and we may never have been able to outbid other clubs with Cubans on the team or higher profiles for Chapman to begin with. I think we all want Chapman, and I believe the Cubs are still in on him.

Velverde for about 5 or 6 sure

but wold he come that far down?

I think he'll end up at around $8M

i might bite at $8 for him

Well if you assume he pitches in 60 games...

that works out to about 13 cents per appearance. That’s somewhat below League Minimum, but I’d offer it to him and see what he thinks.

:-p :)

Well, mayhbe he bites for $8, or we can negotiate up to

$8 Million

You forgot to add in meal money...

I agree with Al, and by elsewhere, I was happy keeping

the powder dry until any injuries/slumps/needs are clearer in June.

Well if the #s are right

and this only cost 3 M in 2010 – the powder is still very dry and Marlon Byrd helps keep us in it in case the team is strong up through June. I think if you were going to wait till June, you might as well have punted in 2010.

"powder dry" assumed resigning Johnson and

seeing how Lilly returns to determine need. Would it still CF, or is SP a bigger need.

I’m not depressed on the numbers now that they’re out and bouyed on the “good teammate” stuff.

Happy to have a guy who can play CF, would be chowdering if it was Pods.

No kidding

I’m very glad it’s not Pods.

You can't be serious, Al.

Yes, I am.

You really think Byrd is worth three years?

I don't like the fact

it’s three years long but 5 million a year could potentially be a steal. Likely? No. But he should live up to his contract.

He might be a good fit. Fuld is not a starter in any way, shape, or form.

3 years at $21M? No 3 years at $15M? Yes.

I agree with you Al

This just doesnt have the feel of a “progressive” move. Very much the same old same old. There are max levels of sucess or expectations for each player and as a team the bar has not been lifted. Yet?

truelinkfence - December 31, 2009 reply

anyone know if year 3 is an option?

that would change the signing a lot

But you were willing to pay $4M for Johnson!

1 year, admittedly… but I’d MUCH rather have Byrd for an extra $1M, especially with Johnson’s back issues (which apparently eliminated him from the Cubs consideration).

I wasn't willing to spend that much on Reed Johnson.

If that had been the price, I’d have said no.

OK, fair enough.

I’d still rather have Byrd. If the deal IS backloaded (which I’d actually be in favor of given the Cubs’ current commitments) then he’ll probably only make $3M or $4M in 2010. Reedz made $3M last year, and unless you were going to give him less in 2010 Byrd will be an upgrade for $1M, at most.

I wouldn't mind seeing Johnson returning as a backup...

… if they could get him at, say, $1.5m.

I wouldn't mind keeping him as a backup either.

I’m hoping that his days with the Cubs aren’t numbered, even given this signing.

Yep.

My argument from the beginning was that the Cubs needed to get two CFs this off-season, because Dome and Sori both need regular time off. At this price, you can still look for someone else.

Well, Reed Johnson is still available.

Yeah.

Now we lose Reed and gain Marlon.

DOES ANYBODY REALIZE WE WENT FROM ONE TEXAS M.B. TO ANOTHER TEXAS M.B.??!!

Rec'd

snickered out loud

If only it had been Mosh Bamilton instead

I heard we could have had him at one time…

At this point, it'll be a LH bat most likely.

Good point

Who else was there? I just don’t know why we had to offer a third year. I don’t know who all was bidding on him other than us. However, maybe teams were bidding that we don’t know about.

Byrd was probably our best option in CF after Cameron was gone. And I don’t mind the $5 per. It’s just that third year I don’t like.

i'd prefer

a different organizational philosophy that didn’t rely on mid tier FA signings

But when you only have $6-7M to spend...

mid-tier FA signings is just about your only option. You could explore a trade, instead… but this signing doesn’t rule that out.

you could hold the dollars

and not committ yourself to more dollars in years when you’ll be able to use those dollars to make a BIG FA signing

you could plug those dollars into the draft/development

it wasn’t like their was a deadline on this money

I agree with you

But that would probably lead to some 90 loss seasons in the near-term that a lot of people around here wouldn’t stand for. They do that in Cleveland where they go fallow and rebuild every few years. I don’t think the Cub Nation would stand for that.

Our farm system is improving, but other than Castro, none of our top position prospects are going to be ready to contribute much before 2012.

but we'll have a TON of money

in 2011

that’s when we should be planning on making another run. Not forcing something that isn’t there now. by going 3 years we’ve now tied up another roster spot and say 5-7 million into that year where we’ll have a bunch of money to pursue a big name player

But people around here

want to win in 2010. And it’s not like there’s another great team in the NL Central to stop us.

Plus, I wouldn’t want to spend a lot of money on FA’s in 2011 when guys like Brett Jackson, Hak-Ju Lee and maybe Logan Watkins will be ready in 2012.

the general consensus

shouldn’t dictate what the Cubs do, this is a big issue i have with the organization, i beleive they’ve succumbed to the pressure the fans have put on them of late

in addition we should be spending in FA but only on ELITE players, not mid-tier players

the goal like the other elite franchises should be to produce players from within that allow you the flexibility to pursue legitimate difference makers in FA. not relying on the mid-tier FAs, that’s what gets you in trouble

in 2011 we’d have the flexibility to spend on legitimate difference makers

I agree on one thing...

I’d have preferred the Cubs to use ALL their remaining money to make a move on Holliday with a longer-term backloaded deal. But they were determined to get a CF’er, and this was one of the best ones on the market.

I swear, some of these players' agents must be laughing so hard

they’re crying when they call their clients and report the deals Hendry proposes. “And get this, Marlon! He wants to give you three years! No, I said years! Yes, three years! Haaaaaa!”

the nth - December 31, 2009 reply

Ughhhh....

Why not a two year contract with an incentive for a third year or something? Jim you’re killing us!

Contempt - December 31, 2009 reply

I literally just said the following when I read the headline...

Are you f***ing kidding me? That was my initial, outloud, reaction.

Jesus Christ, Jim. Another three year deal? Has he not learned ANYTHING?

When was the last season

in which the cubs didn’t sign a free agent outfielder?

3 years isn't really that much, folks...

neither is $5M/season.

Amen, good sir.

And sometime years are what it takes to get a deal done

We don’t know the specifics of what else was on the table or what other teams were involved. A shorter deal, if it could even be done, would have cost more.

I’d prefer 3/15 over 2/13 or something in that realm.

exactly.

especially given the Cubs current contract situation, and the fact that so much money is coming off the books over the next couple of years.

3 at 15

is better than 2 at 20

or 1

at 100,000,000

the money really isn't the problem.

Byrd is probably worth 5 per. 3 years is questionable, but whatever.

The hand wringing should be over whether Byrd is the right player. The plummeting of his walk rate is troubling.

Good point about getting us back on track.

I would argue if “plummet” is the right word for his walk rate. Rather, it looks like he spiked in ‘08 and he came back to career levels in 2009. Can we get him back to a median between ’08 and ’09? I’d hope so.

ok,

2006 : 10%
2007: 6.5 %
2008: 10.2 %
2009: 5.5 %

Maybe plummet isn’t the right word, but he did post the lowest walk rate of his career as a regular player.

Oh

I was looking at BB/K instead of BB% when I scanned the #s. Good point. Where was Marlon hitting in ’08 and in ’09? Could that explain this some – his batting order and perceived role on the club?

I don't really think that

perceived role on the club should affect walk rate, batting order might affect it somewhat (mostly, who is bating behind him).

By the time this deal ends, Byrd will be 35. Will he even be able to play center field by then?

No, I guess not. I mean it’s not like any 35 year old in the history of baseball has played CF

jimmy ballgame?

Byrd is no Edmonds.

And I'd say Edmonds was the exception, not the rule when it comes to 35-36 year old CFers.

Not Cameron?

Wasn’t Lofton 35+ when he played for the Cubs in 2003?

Yeah, at about 65 pounds lighter than Byrd is now.

If how fat he is was your issue,

why didn’t you say “Can a guy this fat play CF in 3 years” as opposed to “I don’t think a 35 yr old can play CF”

I think the point is

That when you age, the weight puts much more strain on your muscles/joints than it does when you are my age.

Hey I'm willing to cook for him!

if that’s what it’ll take, i’ll make low-carb meals every day…

Listen, I'm well aware some guys do it.

They work hard all year to stay in shape at that age. But the fact of the matter is that CF is a physically demanding position that requires quick reactions and good speed (for the most part. Guys like Edmonds that are just incredible at getting a read on a ball off the bad are rare). Speed happens to be one of the (if not the) first tools to go when a player ages. Your reactions will also deteriorate.

Correct, and rec'd.

Was it that?

Or was is that Jimmy Ballgame sometimes dogged it to balls in order to make a more dramatic catch? I’ve heard those theories, and they’re semi-plausible b/c his UZR in CF wasn’t all that impressive. Just because the guy made catches everyone saw on SportsCenter doesn’t mean he was a great CFer.

That being said, I loved Jim in Chicago (not before that). Also, his defense in 2008 was pretty bad. His bat made up for it. And it’s possible Byrd’s bat can make up for his defensive problems when his 35 yr old 245 pound body can’t take sprinting 75-100 feet 7-12 times a game

Correct.

blolololololololol

recd

His weight concerns me though

Maybe our RF and LF players could hold off on base hits or line drives to the gaps.

Byrd would lose about 20 pounds during the course of the season.

Seriously, three years … for someone who’s 33 now is a bit much.

Dome has great range in right

But I guess he’ll burn some calories covering the ground the Sori can’t hop to.

Covering the ground the Sori can't hop to

I know … when has Soriano ever laid out and dived to try to catch a fly ball?

Question … where will Reed Johnson fit into all of this?

I don't recall any

Only the stumble roll ankle catch.

When he catches the ball and then rolls over.

I’ve seen that one before…

OK, let's look at year 3 of this deal.

Let’s assume it’s backloaded so it’s something like $3M, $5M, $7M. If the economy recovers to where it was, free agent contracts will be worth about $5M/season by 2012. That means Byrd would only have to be worth about 1.5 wins. That’s a below-average player. He could do that in a platoon role in CF or in RF.

If the economy doesn’t recover by 2012, this will be a bad deal at that point. But if that happens, we’ll all have bigger problems than who’s on the Cubs roster at at that point

This is Mark DeRosa all over again.

It’s the exact same deal to a player very much like Mark DeRosa, but with CF in place of 2B on his resume.

hahah hopefully it works out that way

3 years for someone who will be 36 at the end of the deal is a bit much.

I’m with you on this, Al. I do not agree with the longevity of this contract. To me, too, it seems too long.

Hendry has made several head-scratching moves over the past few years.

But hey, I will wait to give my judgment on this contract until I see how Byrd plays in CF. Wait, should I not be doing that? To quote drewishdrewid, “you can’t judge a contract until it’s over.”

Well, I can, and I’ll see how this contract looks in the middle of the season.

P.S.: Cue BLou. He’ll be here to yell about this at some point. It’s only a matter of time.

he probably popped a few arteries when he heard about this

Chanman25 - December 31, 2009 reply

Some positives about the deal...

5M/year really isn’t all that much, at all. It’s the 3 years that I don’t like.

Byrd can and has played all 3 outfield positions. I like having versatile outfielders.

His best years came under the man who is now our hitting coach. That can’t be a bad thing.

Yep

And best of all – our defense in the OF is much, much better now. Byrd should be an average CF, but with an above average RF, he can help cover LF. Ted Lilly is happy (although he doesn’t need a defense behind him).

I think the Cubs will be 30 runs better on OF defense than last year.

That’s 3 wins, a crazy good improvement.

So, this gets us up over 75 wins, then?

whew

85 wins?

we're allowed to win games this year?

Only after Hendry is fired.

dammit!

As a Dallas resident and Rangers watcher (though my heart is with the Cubs),

I am happy with this acquisition, other than perhaps the contract length. I had actually just been thinking last week when I heard the Rangers had not come to terms with Byrd that it would be nice to have him. He is fun to watch, is a great teammate by all accounts and I think we’ll be happy to have him.

dfrancon - December 31, 2009 reply

And the Dallas sports radio guys

are verklempt over losing Byrd. They believe the Rangers will miss him dearly.

dfrancon - December 31, 2009 reply

Why, exactly?

Because of his production? Good clubhouse guy? Both? Something else?

Al, I believe he's a guy who comes through in a clutch.

I’ve seen him do that several times, and I don’t go to that many Rangers games, so it stands out to me. I also am anxious for the team to get back to having a cohesive clubhouse without the poison that was Bradley. As for the Dallas sports radio guys, they talked only about missing his production.

dfrancon - December 31, 2009 reply

he is not god gift to CF

but far from bad. The Angel fan I work with thanks the CUbs (literally he said that) for taking him out of the AL West. He said that Byrd was a thron in their side (not sure if this is his opinion, many opinions from the AL West or what).

what was your opinion

last year when we signed Gameboard?

Three freaking years??

aaaaaahhhhhhhhh!!!

Good god Jim….

JB 23 - December 31, 2009 via mobile reply

BLou's going to be here soon.

It’s only a matter of time.

His Hendry-bashing is going to become much more frequent now.

More frequent?

Is this possible?

SHHH!

I sure hope not.

Don’t encourage him!

it'll be interesting

to see how Byrd actually does.

Cubs 5-point Free Agent Planning process

1. Finish the season out of the playoffs. It provides more time to develop the off-season plan.
2. Determine a budget. The Dartboard at Nisei Lounge on Sheffield is critical to the process.
3. Select a free agent to sign. Rotate between the most over-hyped free agent outfielder vs. the worst fit for the current roster.
4. Dust off last year’s press release and insert player’s name into this statement “Cubs Sign Free Agent X To Three-Year Deal.” From Cubs management “We like three years because everyone in the office can count that high. We were going to go with 6 years, but sometimes we mix up our 6’s with our 9’s.”
5. Hold news conference. Put jersey on player. Take pictures. Don’t say anything meaningful."

They can't go five

because it resembles an S too much.

Rec’d for the Nisei Lounge reference.

I need to try the Nisei Lounge

I have dive-bar recommendations from other long-time Cubs fans. But I have friends who tend to go to Piano Man, divey with a outdoor patio and a bartender we know. I like The Yard too, especially for the alcoves in back, that were previously horse stables.

Meh

I stopped going there, they made it all hipster-y. Just like the old Wrigleyville Tap, now called Fish or Raw or something ridiculous.

salparadise23 - December 31, 2009 reply

felipe lopez at second and leadoff would look very nice

His wife would be worth the signing alone.

Cue Al’s picture….

Yellonography!

lol!

Um....

… that’s a book author who I was at a book signing with. No relation.

I think dtpollitt was referring to you, actually.

I was referring to Lopez's wife.

The awesome picture Al always posts when his name comes up!

Ah, thanks for clearing that up.

Sorry about getting confused there.

Oh, you mean this picture.

Dang.

a little overrated

oh come on

no straight guy finds her overrated.

hahah i was just kidding

Better sign Felipe Lopez

We need a lead-off hitter. And his wife is hot.
He’s switch hitter. And his wife is hot.
He has a career .338 OBP. And his wife is hot.

She looks like a 5-year deal alone.

Is she lefthanded?

Maybe we can sign her instead.

Stupify the opposition.

Put her at second so all the right handed batters see her.

Who's looking at her hands?!

And you know she loved Felipe when he was minor leaguer. Oh yeah.

Ghost of Fred Merkle - December 31, 2009 reply

hire the scout!

She hitched up with Felipe as a minor leaguer?!?!? We need to hire her as a scout! She’d do better at our system at identifying future major leaguers!

I don't care which hand she wants to use.

santoswoodenlegs - December 31, 2009 reply

lol

rec

Really?

eths - December 31, 2009 reply

WTF????

Man, that's the worst case of foamiate fingeritis I've ever seen...

My eyes!!!!

now that's a backloaded contract!

Oh my, I'm blusing bright red right now.

You said “cue Al’s picture,” and I thought you meant literally.

My bad, epic fail on my part.

Ah, a picture from the world-famous "pornography thread" in September 2008!

I still say

we need a BCB Post Hall of Fame.

Add the better half photos

of DeRosa and Kotsay and this thread will qualify.

+1

Emelie - January 1, 2010 reply

I have a second question.

What’s going to happen with Reed Johnson? Is he going to platoon with the other OF players, or with just one of them?

Well, they have to sign him first.

But I’d guess he would back up all three OF spots, and face LHP instead of Fukudome.

I doubt he will be signed.

why? He is a perfect 4th OF, considering the Byrd signing.

The Cubs apparently don't want him because of his back issues.

if the price is right, I think its worth it....

..but that back has hamstrung the Cubs a few times now.

dr stabbingworth - December 31, 2009 reply

Fuld is cheap and good enough to be the 4th OF

I’d rather spend that money on pitching.

Can anyone remember a contract that has been Frontloaded?

cozmotaylor123 - December 31, 2009 reply

Not in baseball.

Paxson signed a few for players with the Bulls (Ben Wallace, for example). NFL teams do it from time to time, and used to do it more when signing bonuses only counted against the current year’s salary cap.

There are a number of reasons to backload contracts, for both parties. It makes sense, especially in an economic downturn, and even more so when the team in question has a lot of bloated, back-loaded contracts about to come off the books.

Just because other backloaded contracts are bad doesn’t mean every one is bad. Backloading this deal was the right move.

I'd like to see the per-year numbers.

With our upcoming massive inflation likely...

I’d have them pay me the entire contract the first year and then play for free after that. :)

I THOUGHT WE WE'RE TRYING TO STOP WASTING MONEY!

3 years $15 mil for a 33 year old average OF? WTF!

3 years $15M for an average player...

is about the market value for average players.

Just sayin’.

Buying a new car with some of these guys

must be an interesting experience. “I’ll give you $12,000 for this brand-new Cadillac!”

(Although the way they’re giving away cars these days, maybe that isn’t an apt comparison.)

We need to get younger

And we’re cock-blocking any young talent we have with old friggin players on bad, backloaded contracts. Horrible.

Who, in your estimation,

is being “cock-blocked” by “old friggin players”? Castro? Vitters? Fuld? Seriously?

Every OF spot we have is blocked by a veteran on a bad contract

No room for Colvin now, and yes, Brett Jackson. It’s not inconceivable to think that Jackson could be ready for MLB this June… just look across at the other side of town and see Gordon Beckham. 1st round pick in 2008 was starting by mid-season. Beckham and Jackson were both drafted out of college at the same age.

If and when that happens...

Byrd likely become either your 4th outfield, still playing regularly, or he becomes trade bait.

His contract doesn’t make either of those possibilities an unreasonable option.

Great point....at $5m per there is some flexibility

The whole situation is still a friggin problem.

For 3 straight years they’ve added huge contracts to solve the outfield… and it’s still not friggin solved.

Fukudome, Bradley, and now Byrd. They’ve been paying big for veterans who are supposed to solve a position… and all of these guys have been reduced to platoon players.

4 - Soriano was to be the leadoff CF

At least he's not a friggin platoon player

Although… the way he hobbles around out there, he looks like he’s in a platoon.

Sometimes injured, either super hot

or super cold. He may be the very rare everyday platoon player.

I believe you men

he is in pontoons

I believe you MEAN

he is in pontoons

3/15

is a “huge” contract?

Colvin could still be the Cubs' 4th OF this year...

and Jackson could find a way to contribute come September. Worst-case scenario you try to trade Fukudome to make room for one of them.

I can't see

Brett Jackson ready for the show in June. No way. Maybe June 2011.

Gordon Beckham was much more advanced in college than Brett Jackson was.

Indeed

Beckham and Jackson aren’t quite the same player. And bobby h’s point is an excellent one.

June? Of 2010?

seriously? Every projection I’ve seen says Jackson is ready in 2012.

Who does this block?

Brett Jackson? It doesn’t.

Fuld? Hah.

Colvin? Maybe, but he could still be a useful 4th OF.

Colvin's not a CF

except in a pinch. So yeah, it doesn’t block him at all. And he’s most likely a useful 4th outfielder at his best anyway.

yup... the only guy worth worrying about blocking

is Brett Jackson, IMO. And he’s not close enough to worry about in that sense. By the time he’s ready Byrd will likely have to move to RF, anyways. And if Jackson has to move there, you can try to trade Byrd or something.

Does this make Fuld this CF backup then?

I think so.

this = the

Probably CF and LF

$h happens

Geo Soto

Is the only cubs position player on the right side of 30, depending on what happens with second base. Weird to think of the turning 30 fontenot and the turning 29 Baker as the young guys.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/12/outfield-options-for-the-braves.html

Another critique

No one else seemed to be bidding for Byrd.

Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports says the Braves and Yankees both say Bay and Matt Holliday are too expensive. Both teams are interested in Mark DeRosa, and Rosenthal says we shouldn’t rule out Marlon Byrd for either club.

So if Ken Rosenthal says it, it must be true?

Just because you don't hear about it

doesn’t mean other teams weren’t doing it.

Because you say that there was no interest by any other clubs,

it must be true?

I didn't say the things in your blue quote boxes.

You said

“No one else seemed to be bidding for Byrd”

What are you contending? I’m just what everyone else in this little section is saying… Just because you didn’t hear it doesn’t mean no one was interested.

Summed up

I think this is a better signing than it is bad. The overreaction of ANGER over it is laughable.

yup...

the “worst thing” about it is year 3 at something like $7M.

Well, Ken is pretty good

He does make mistakes, but he’s the best around right now. So maybe the Braves did have an offer in.

Why thanks, Josh.

What a nice thing to say… ;-)

I don't think anyone was knocking down the door for Byrd...

…but given the dearth of outfielders available in FA, I have to suspect there was additional interest.

As you often point out, just because we’re not reading about it in the papers doesn’t mean it is not happening.

wait

I thought we were supposed to take what reporters say clubs are doing as gospel.

HA!

I especially found Jon Heyman’s tweets earlier this week amusing.

First, he said Z was eminently available, then said no way the Cubs are trading him.

I'm just glad

that it wasn’t Pods for 3 years at 12 million. That was my worstest fear.

JodyDavis - December 31, 2009 reply

That's looking at the bright side!

We could have given Scott Posednik this contract!

Seriously

I really feared that he was one of Hendry’s man-crushes that he wouldn’t let get away. Actually, now that I think about it, he’d make a good 4th outfielder, and he might come cheap if as long as Hendry doesn’t bid against himself.

JodyDavis - December 31, 2009 reply

Agreed, I woke up with night terrors about the thought of Pods as a Cub.

I'm just glad..

… that it wasn’t Pods for 3 days at 25 cents.

dmlichte - December 31, 2009 reply

wow

cubs suck eternally

slapshot53 - December 31, 2009 reply

cry about it

Thanks for this insightful comment

now go back to your Sox blog

El Borto - December 31, 2009 reply

I've had to warn you about language once.

And you’ve only made 8 comments. Don’t make me do it again.

May I ask what you found offensive?

n/t

Damen Jackson - December 31, 2009 reply

Just the fact that he said "Cubs suck" without any position taken.

Pointless message-board garbage.

You're welcome to take your "enlightened position" elsewhere.

It reminds me of the DeRosa signing....

They paid around average money for a slightly above average player. Over the course of his contract, Byrd is likely to play slightly above or slightly below expectations and will, thus, be thought of as slightly over paid or slightly underpaid.

For a fun comparison, note BCB the reaction from when DeRosa was signed:

Derosa might have a decent year, but that won’t change the fact that this was a terrible signing in the vein of Rusch and Perez. Put it this way, wouldn’t everyone rather have a 13 mil starter like zito or schmidt and a league average second baseman over a 8 or 9 mil starter like lily and derosa?

it’s not a blunder to get either off the roster. overpaying for a 31 year old utility man coming off his career highs is. it is just so frustrating to watch this overmatched gm continue to make the same stupid mistakes.

I’d rather have Nomar at 2B

More bad money I’m afraid.

His ’05 numbers also skewed by hitter friendly Texas..he may be a good bench guy. I hope thats all he is.

a 3 yr deal? Be serious

and finally, B(Lou)lue Mike’s proposed poll:

Upon learning that the Cubs signed Mark DeRosa to a 3 year, $14 million deal to be the new 2nd baseman…

A. Milk come out of nose and my computer keyboard is now toast.

B. I hopped on every single sports website known to man to see if a decimal point was missing and, in fact, DeRosa had actually been signed to a $1.4 million deal.

C. I set up a candlelight memorial to Ryan Theriot and Augie Cedeno in my front lawn.

D. I jumped for joy that the Cubs did something to address 2nd baseman.

E. I didn’t jump for joy, but I didn’t go into a vapor lock either…this was a decent signing in a severe seller’s market…we got a 2nd baseman and we needed one.

All i’m saying is let him play. Don’t expect him to be the star of the team, but rather expect him to do what he is asked and you have a reasonable contract. This isn’t significant enough that it will have a dramatic bearing on anything else that the Cubs will or will not do over the next several years.

"Augie Cedeno"?

hahahaha

Who's that?

Blou's dream SS

Awesome!

Good work

I didn’t say any of those stupid things, did I? (I honestly don’t remember my reaction to the DeRosa signing. I think I was pretty lukewarm about it, like I am about this.)

I remember I didn't like it...

for many reasons that Dartmouth Cubs Fan has to be against this one. But you can get good bargains in this price range, and I think this is one of them.

Yeah,

I can’t scream too loudly about a 3/15 deal. Not my first choice, but at least I don’t get an indication that Hendry overpaid at that price.

Damen Jackson - December 31, 2009 reply

I didn't look closely at the names...

…just scanned a couple of posts quickly.

My point was just that the response was overwhelming negative, with a lot of yelling about how Hendry overpaid, when in the end the Cubs got right about the value of what they paid for. And the team was better for it.

Wow...

I would have passed on Byrd altogether, but the money, regardless of the length of contract, is really inconsequential. It shouldn’t prevent any future moves by the Cubs, and doesn’t preclude moving him later in the contract, given the chance. Consider me in the “Meh” group.

Damen Jackson - December 31, 2009 reply

so he have:

career OPS+ platoon splits (vs. RHP/LHP)

Theriot (93/124)
Fukudome (118/70)
Lee (97/112)
Ramirez (97/110)
Soriano (98/108)
Byrd (99/101)
Soto (96/111)
Baker (87/125)
Pitcher

..Dome becomes your most dangerous hitter vs. RHP (which comprise about 3/4 of all ML pitchers)

let's hope

all the NL central teams sign all lefty pitching staffs and we will mash!

For all the hand-wringing...

about the 3rd year of this deal and it’s backloading and the age and weight of the CF’er, no one (until now) has brought up the biggest issue with this signing. The Cubs really needed a LF-bat to play CF. None were on the market, but signing Byrd solidifies the handedness of this lineup (at least for now). That’s by far the worst thing about this deal, and you’re the first one to point it out.

Well done.

But when there aren't any LH bats worth acquiring...

Marlon Byrd’s ability to hit RHP is the next best thing. I believe Andronicus pointed this out before. I think it was either he or Daver who brought me around to preferring Byrd to Cameron because of the splits.

I'd agree with that.

That’s why given the market context and the Cubs current contract commitments, I think this was an excellent move.

well it was the best available

move (at least as far as FAs). his bat will be fine at Wrigley (certainly a better option than Cameron given his splits). this deal, IMO, will be judged by how severely his defense ages (which, conversely, was the most attractive part of Cameron’s game).

Yup.

I agree, 100%.

Granderson was the best LH CF available and he was gone

After that it gets pretty sparse, unless you hypothesize trades. But those require the other team to be willing to make a deal.

Where Have I Heard This Story Before?

The Cubs sign a Texas Rangers outfielder with the initials of MB to a 3-year deal. What could possibly go wrong?

memphiscub - December 31, 2009 reply

Yes,

All things being completely equal too?

Just because A is like B, doesn’t mean B = A.

I think it was a joke.

Just like the outrage over the signing?

A Little Bit of A Joke

Marlon Byrd and Milton Bradley aren’t the same type of player. It’s highly unlikely Byrd is going to have as high an OBP as Bradley. I was thinking of the similarities with length of contract, being Texas outfielders, and the initials. I’m mildly against the signing but not outraged. I believe Byrd will be happier in Chicago than Bradley was.

memphiscub - December 31, 2009 reply

I already posted that 20 minutes ago.

What was the last signing

that received almost universal approval from BCB? Not asking to be a smart-aleck, I’m just trying to remember.

I think Reed Johnson's

initial $1 mil signing was applauded.

That was a good one

Picking up RJ was absolute theft.

I don't know if there has been one when I have been here.

I haven’t been around that long, though, so I don’t really have much of a frame of reference.

Well, Aramis

was a FA for an hour before we re-signed him. If you count that, I’d say that was uncontroversial.

Actually that missing hour was funny

People wanted Hendry’s head on a platter because they thought he screwed up an A-Ram was gone.

I did read

the Angels were waiting until later in the day to make him a huge offer—they didn’t want to seem too eager. But you’re right, I remember that hour. It was pretty funny.

I remember

I remember that day the Score was reporting Ramirez had told Hendry to take their last offer and stick it where the sun don’t shine. That there was no chance he’d come back to the Cubs. It was a Bears pregame crap and Hub Arkush a huge Cubs fan was talking more about Ramirez then the Bears game.

They were reporting this when someone broke in to announce the Cubs had just announced Ramirez had resigned.

puckishcubsfan - January 1, 2010 reply

This is why you should not listen to sports talk radio.

So the question is...

…will his new nickname will be Byrdie? Yes? YES?

Haha. Well, overall, it’s not a bad signing. The contract might be a little too long, but if he plays at least slightly average, he shouldn’t be too bad.

Azul Cachorro - December 31, 2009 reply

Contract details:

2010: 3M
2011: 5.5M
2012: 6.5M

per Twittermyer

not bad

That's not too bad

Only $6.5 for the dreaded third season. We can buy that out if we have to.

That may be a 1-win contract by 2012.

If the economy hadn’t tanked, free agents were on pace to be worth $5M/win this year, $5.5M/win in 2011, and $6.1M/win in 2012. As it is, they’ll probably be worth $5-5.5M in 2012. So they’re overpaying him by $1M if he only gets 1 win above replacement in 2012.

Now what?

I think another bullpen arm is next…although I think I am coming around to the “Sign Felipe Lopez” crowd as long as it is a cheap 1 year deal…problem is he has other options that will pay him more…

was fukudome really that bad in CF?

Yes.

-18.something UZR/150. The Cubs are projected to be 30 runs better this year on defense with Byrd in CF and Fukudome in RF.

Typically...

it’s 10 runs/win added, right? Or am I misremembering that?

Yup.

The Cubs are projected to be 3 wins better in OF defense than they were in 2009. That’s about the difference between the projections of Harden and Gorzelanny on the mound.

dang that's pretty bad

and he's projected to be +2 in RF.

Wow!

I knew Dome was a minus in CF, but I had no idea he was that bad. I would have thought he was somewhere in the -8/-10 range, but I was evidently wrong.

memphiscub - December 31, 2009 reply

me too.

i think he was in that range, and must have just falled apart towards the end of the year when we stopped caring as much and checking fangraphs every other day.

question

Does this take into account how much extra coverage had to be performed by Dome on the left side of the field due to high-quality fielder we have in left field? Please note the sarcasm there.

Off-Season

Overall, this could be worse….My biggest disappointment this off-season is that Holliday looks like he is coming back to St. Louis…I’d feel better if he signed elsewhere…too bad he played poorly by his standards in Oakland because the Angels probably would have gone for him…

Three years?

I’m surprised BLou has yet to comment.

Ace Venom - December 31, 2009 reply

SHHH!!

Someone made the point that

Byrd’s most similar batter is Reed Johnson.

More importantly though, it should be noted that is most similar batter at age 25 was a gentleman named Bake McBride.

The Cubs signed the Bird?

Excellent. Oh, wait.

R.I.P “Maaaarkie…”. We miss you.

The Bird is the Word!!!

I don't know

I really don’t think this signing is that bad of a deal. You could argue the money Hendry threw around for Dome, Milton, Demp, and Soriano is the issue which leads to all of the anger. He is a upgrade in center, a slight one for a reasonable cost.
I think the key to the deal is when Dome’s contract runs it course Byrd shifts to right and centerfield will belong to Felix Pie.
But seriously this is not that bad of a move. I still would like to see some more arms, another starter would do.

Grockcubs - December 31, 2009 reply

That's right.

The biggest problems with the Cubs contracts is Soriano’s and the money still owed to Silva/Bradley.

I wouldn't put Ryan Dempster

on that list.

I believe his production in 2010 was in line with what he was paid.

Dempster has been a steal.

...and is a good candidate to improve further in 2010.

how?

his contract rises by 4.5 million, how is he going to get 4.5 million better?

Because of his slow 2009 start to the season,

it’s possible for him to be better in 2010.

Darthmouth

I usually love your posts but you need to take a look at our contracts again. Your valuation of them is off on several.

If Dempster

doesn’t impove one effin bit he is still worth the 4.5 million raise. He gave us 16 million in value last year.

I’m gonna get a post or two together— shawn do you have an email address I can send something to?

check out my post above

not suggesting Dempster was a bad signing, suggesting i don’t understand how he can improve further

He can run up

two mountains!

in snow!

uphill both ways!

in ice skates!

Only Ted Lilly can do that!

Ted does it on Roller Skates

twss

?

I think I have a BCB one somewhere on this page...

I'm going to do a "offseason review"

We could use an overflow thread, anyways…

what am i missing here?

his FIP was nearly identical to his ERA, he was worth well above 12.5 million and has been a great signing, yes i agree

i dont understand how he’ll improve FURTHER

he needs to get more than 4.5 million better next year (pitch at a 20+ million dollar worth) to improve FURTHER beyond the value provided last year

I didn't say he'd be a better value...

just that he’d be better.

why?

he pitched to his peripherals last season….

His K% rate was lower than you'd expect given his whiff%

Fangraphs had a list of pitchers with his whiff% a while ago. Dempster had one of the lower K% for those pitchers, and the two stats correlated well in general.

good deal

but yeah...

if you’re looking at the peripherals you wouldn’t expect improvement, so I understand why you questioned that statement. And “good bet” may be stretching it. A better way to put it is “there’s at least one reason to expect improvement in 2010.”

i was also referencing it to value

yar...

fair enough. i doubt they’ll continue to get as much value out of him, given his increase in salary.

Wow, some people just can't be pleased

The Cubs just signed the best center field option left on the market. A guy who has been worth $37.2M over the last 3 years, for 3 years $15M.

What on earth is not to like about this deal? 3 years isn’t that bad, especially given that it’s so far below his expected market value.

Well

a lot of groundwork had been done on BCB, priming people to be against this deal no matter what it was. Most of us agreed a third year would have been bad, but we agreed to that back when we thought Byrd would be paid like Cameron was paid. I think when the dust clears most people will be mildly in favor or just “meh.”

It depends what happens to the $2M "savings"

If that $2M savings from Byrd’s deal is given to another arm, put me down as mildly in favor. If it isn’t, put me down as a “meh”.

JimAnchower - December 31, 2009 reply

Not a bad deal, not a great deal

It’s an average contract for an average player. Nothing really to get too upbeat or downtrodden about.

If it doesn’t work out, he’s still cheap enough that he could be traded. But the likelyhood is that he isn’t going to perform bmuch eyond the contract, nor will he perform much below the contract. Three years is a bit of a question, but they probably needed to do it so the first year is less. They could now go after another arm on a one year deal.

JimAnchower - December 31, 2009 reply

rec'd

What's our target budget again?

I’m just wondering how much money we have left for a 1-year deal? Enough to get a starter ala Ben Sheets (once his ludicrous demands come down, I mean)?

Or are we looking at a cheap arm?

We are right at 140

I would think anybody we add is going to be through trade at this point.

So the $2M on Byrd's deal

So the $2M saved from Byrd’s first year is to keep the payroll under/at the $140M limit and another arm may not be coming.

JimAnchower - December 31, 2009 reply

Does that include anything for Reed Johnson?

One more OF would be good.

I am assuming this makes Fuld a lock to make the bench

barring injuries. Which is what I wanted. I am guessing the Cubs re-sign RJ but who knows. Hoff as the IF/OF ? If they could RJ cheap yes but it depends.

I want the Byrd/Fuld

reverse platoon.

LOL.

No Hoff please, I pray that exercise is over.....

Oops I meant I am guessing the Cubs do not re-sign RJ

Not necessarily.

He could still be a 4th OF, starting in RF vs. LHP, with Fuld as the 5th OF.

Looks like Hendry is starting to get it...

Hendry said he isn’t concerned that the Cubs’ lineup will lack balance in 2010.

“We won 97 games two years ago with a lineup that was predominantly right-handed,” he said.

You mean just put the best 8 hitters out there, and don’t get overly preoccupied with what side of the plate they hit from? Brilliant!

http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2009/12/byrd-winds-up-a-cub-just-as-he-wanted-all-along.html

Linky...

Yeah and the Dodgers never used a LHP in the division series

Never needed to. The Dodger RHPs were getting the job done. Left handed hitters have an advantage in baseball and ignoring that advantage is ridiculous.

But the Cubs larger problem is that they play weak competition in the NL Central and are never challenged to execute baseball fundamentals in order to score. Too many games of “big ball” and not enough execution of “small ball”.

So he Cubs can again hit the playoffs in 2010 and get knocked out earlier when the encounter tougher pitching in each game from a non NL Central team. Without the ability to execute and manufacture runs, I see 2007 or 2008 all over again.

If you're hitting well, it doesn't matter if it's against RHP or LHP

Lee hit well in that series, so a right handed lineup wasn’t the problem. Soriano is a career .213 postseason hitter and his postseason batting average with the Cubs is what has made us cringe: .107. Considering he was hitting leadoff in both division series, it’s not hard to understand why things went south. The team didn’t hit well overall for two straight division series, which is one reason I was calling for Lou Piniella’s job after 2008. I’ll be pretty glad when the Jim Hendry/Lou Piniella era is over.

Ace Venom - December 31, 2009 reply

Agreed

It doesn’t help when you score only 6 runs in 3 games – happened both in 07 and in 08.

The Cubs keep signing players who are good for the 162 game season, but not necessarily good for the playoffs. Until they learn how to win in the regular season like it is the playoffs, it will be one series and done. Thanks, now move on to football.

I think your small ball/big ball point has some value

I would like to see the Cubs add some more “small ball” capacity on the bench. Sometimes in playoff ball, the run produced without a hit (BB/SB/groundout/SF) can be important.

Oh, good freakin lord.

NOW he figures this out?

Feel a little like you've fallen down the 'ole rabbit hole Al?

Hendry’s wife’s name isn’t Alice, is it? ;)

Exactly Al

JImbo, you now say this. You should keep your yap shut about the “left side of the plate”, You dug a hole so damn deep with MB, don’t go there Hendry.

Grockcubs - December 31, 2009 reply

Boras should be having fun trying to get Ankiel a contract.

FYI my trivia question and NO googling.
Who is Boras’ only client on the Cubs ?

Aramis?

Nope.

I think it’s a bench player.

Or is it Samardzija?

Nope.

Maddux was a Boras client...

No relevance to this topic.

I looked on the MLB Traderumors list

and didn’t find any Cubs.

Are you sure there’s a Boras client on the Cubs? Is it a minor league player?

The last Boras player I recall the Cubs signed was Mark Pawlek (sp?) and he’s been released.

You CHEATED

and you don’t read to well cause he is on there ( how do you think I found it)

Now I'll have to look again.

Oh crap, it's right at the top!

It’s Jeff Baker!

Now you cheated AND told everyone

hahahah

That's why they created google!

Yes but I said no googling

Only I get to google.

There are search engines other than google

Those were fair game.

Ace Venom - December 31, 2009 reply

Actually I don't think Cow googled at all

He went to the Boras list on traderumors where I found this but still no fun. I was enjoying confusing people.

forget google

dogpile.com

rich harden

is he on

the major league roster?

pineilla

?

is this a trick question?

did scott boras represent himself when he played for the Cubs?

well

at least in their org

A regular current Cub not a trick

Is it Lou?

See above

from spoilsport cow.

Mooooooooo!

Nope

but being a teammate of Bill Caudill’s in the Cubs minors was what made him an agent. Caudill asked Boras, who had just graduated from law school, to represent him when he became a FA. Boras got a huge contract for a pretty unremarkable reliever and the rest is history.

doofus cubs guy - December 31, 2009 reply

a huge huge contract

didn’t caudill get hurt soon after and not really pitch much?

Either Hendry is a

A) Freaking, fabulous genius

or

b) [degoratory, lewd, insultig sexual innuendo]

eths - December 31, 2009 via mobile reply

B. Hasta la vista las vegas

Or he made a decent deal given the limitations.

Pretty low risk and nobody really great out there anyway.

Just better not be any NTC here.

Given the circumstances you may be right,

but it “feels” like a bit of a “poor gamble” to me.

eths - December 31, 2009 via mobile reply

Everything feels like it's a bad deal these days

The Cubs could trade Neal Cotts for Jason Bay and I’d be concerned it would turn out bad.

Wow, that's all I have to say...

Jimmyeatworld - December 31, 2009 reply

Way OT here.....

…but who else is fired up for Hawks v Devils tonight?

OT +1

I was hoping to see more tickets released for tonight but no such luck (at least so far).

let's go!!!!

Not a huge fan of this deal

but I’d rather spend $15m for 3 years on Byrd compared to spending $15m for 3 years on Brandon Lyon like the Astros did.

SonnyJ9 - December 31, 2009 reply

Rec'd

Good comp

personally

i think comparing your GM to Ed Wade is like comparing a human being to a snail in terms of intellectual capacity

Poor Ed Wade

but yeah lol

I don't mind it

He was obviously the best option available. Johnny Damon and Jermaine Dye were both too expensive for their ages. Byrd offers a decent glove and bat; also, with the addition of Rudy Jamarillo can only help out his chances of continuing to be successful, given they were on the same team last year. If he performs well, it’s a steal. If not, it’s not a horrible contract to endure and could be easy to dump or trade.

I don’t like it, but I don’t really hate it.

Chanman25 - December 31, 2009 reply

Yeah me too

I’m not going to expect him to put up last years numbers because he’s never done that before, I say 270/320/ with 10 homers is reasonable.

Meh.

3 years=bad. $15mil=good

Ryno Runner - December 31, 2009 reply

The difference in Bradley and Byrd's VORPS last year was 18

That wins a team about 2 games. The difference in their contracts is 5 million dollars a year. A player worth 5 million dollars a year usually earns you a vorp between 20-30. That’s 2-3 wins. Not to mention this allows the Cubs to slide Kosuke back to right, where he prevented 12 more runs last year. That wins you 2-3 games. If Byrd and Fukudome both deliver numbers similar to last years, this signing wins the Cubs 6-8 games.

Please send that math to Lou

Better yet, just tell him how many extra games the Cubs should win. he’s still busy working on new double or triple switch combinations.

But the difference

in their contracts is taken up by Silva, if I’m reading you correctly. And I don’t think Silva is worth any wins. And if the Cubs put Fuld or anyone else in-house in center, you could still put Fukudome in right and get those wins.

So the only wins generated are that which the Cubs gain IF Byrd produces this year as he did last year, despite leaving a hitter’s park—that’s a big if.

So by my math the move nets the Cubs somewhere between 0 and 2 wins.

Include the upgrade on 4th OF

going from Colvin to Fuld.

You seem very bullish on Fuld, which the Cubs do not seem to be. That’s fine – I’m growing more bullish on him, too – but I’m not bullish on Colvin or Hoffpauir in the corners. Dome and Sori need rest. If you buy into Fuld, then he can play all over the OF resting everyone – which the two corner men will definitely need.

Unfortuantely,

the 2-3 wins the Cubs get from not having Bradley under contract are being wasted on Silva’s deal.

I just put up a new post. The Cubs aren’t any better or any worse than they were when they started the offseason. They still have a move to make to be a playoff contender.

Correct

You and Tomas are right. If I’m not mistaken however, I think I heard they were saving 3 million?

puckishcubsfan - December 31, 2009 reply

I wonder

I wonder if the 3 years was to sprad out the money given the Cubs financial situation. Maybe the Cubs would have needed to go to 7 per year if it was 2.

I like this signing. I don’t love the signing but I do like it. I especially like not having to give up anyone in a trade.

I love this signing in a professional attaboy way. Anyone who gets this reference will get a high five from me.

On a side note I gave Cubs By the Numbers to my cousin for Christmas. I had him in our Secret Santa drawing. He loved it!

And Happy New Year’s everyone.

For those of you keeping score at home...

…it looks like Bradley netted us Silva, Byrd and $3M in 2010. Do I have that right?

heh

I believe so, yes.

You have that right but

Silva belongs in the negative column, Byrd and $3m in the positive column. Not sure how that nets out.

SonnyJ9 - December 31, 2009 reply

hopefully

Silva turns out to be more than an expensive version of the Luis Vizcaino deal.

I think

the problem is not the 3 year, 15 mil deal for Byrd. The deal isn’t bad in isolation.

For me the problem is all the other poor decisions Hendry has made in the outfield that have made this signing necessary.

Offseason review/overflow thread up...

link.

take a look at the comparison…

DeRosa in 2006 vs Byrd in 2009...

doc_blume - December 31, 2009 reply

talk about being the same player

that was a great link to see those numbers side by side, thanks

Im sure this wont end disastrously

can we just fire this guy for crying out loud?

bren - December 31, 2009 reply

I am worried about this

He does not even look like a CF. I guess Kirby Puckett didn’t either……

3 years seems a bit much, does ANYONE know of any other team who was offering 3 years? Or did JH just bid vs himself again?

I hope this works out, but it could possibly be one of the final nails in the coffin for JH.

TJ11 - December 31, 2009 reply

i dont like the 3 years

and have no idea who else was/wasnt bidding for him. there is a chance he wanted 15M and JH said over 3 not 2 to get the deal done, who knows for sure.

I am still waiting to see full details, hoping its 2 years with an option 3rd

2 years/$12M were numbers that were geing kicked around

So maybe the extra year only cost about $3M over a 2 year deal.

And Cameron went for 2/15

I hope the 3rd year is an option as well

And it will be good to see how this is backloaded.

I would still like to see RJ on the team to platoon with Dome.

TJ11 - December 31, 2009 reply

i read in this long thread

possibly
3.5
5.5
6

if so, thats not bad at all IMHO

The Jade Scorpion - December 31, 2009 reply

That means they should still have some money for this year, right?

Maybe another outfielder…..A 2b, maybe. I like Baker but our infielders have a way of getting hurt on occasion and he will be moving around..

TJ11 - December 31, 2009 reply

(sob)

Well….at least I read this before 2010 – If I had to start the year with a three-year Marlon Byrd signing……….

Maybe, just maybe, we can get 70 RBIs or so out of this guy — for this year at least.

It does hamper the much-anticipated 2011 salary freedom many of us were hoping would usher in a much-improved team.

Hey – it’s Hendry. What did you expect? Probably 7-8 million for a 36-year-old OF by the third year whose production might not even be everyday player production.

Sigh.

Oh well

There really wasn’t anyone better unless we traded.

He’s an improvement on Sam FUld!

AussieCub - December 31, 2009 reply

ouch

After driving the whole day, this is a bummer to see. Do not like this one bit. I expected it and posted about that potential, but this is just, ouch.

Early in the offseason, a Chicago writer had indicated to me that the Cubs would be pursuing a bat with some pop (rather than a leadoff type), so in regards to “talent”, Byrd is fine. In regards to signing him as a FA and not trying assets for an overvalued mid-tier talent like Melky or Brett Gardner, that’s fine as well.

But three years? Now, I expected it, but that still hurts. I could live with 2 years, but 3?
Why did I expect it? Hendry needed to find a way to lower the burden this year, and to a lesser extent, next year. I think that might be the biggest reason as to why 3 years was necessary. If it had been 2 years, and Hendry wanted to keep the base salary low this year, that might’ve meant a 7 million salary for 2011.

On the whole, the offseason to date is fine relative to the moves that have been made, the options that we had, and the limitations that Hendry had. I don’t agree completely with some of the broader conceptual things that Hendry has done, but they don’t relate to the specific moves. On the plus side, I anticipate that this signing will allow for Fuld to get more time due to some of Byrd’s limitations (whereas a Podsednik/Ankiel signing might not have allowed for that).

toonsterwu - December 31, 2009 reply

Big Byrd?

This guy weighs in at 245? Not exactly the svelte, agile type, I guess. Is there a bigger CF anywhere?

Gabby Hartnett Where are You? - December 31, 2009 reply

Well, this a decent signing, not great.

But this New Year’s Eve is a whole lot better than last year’s.

Goodie1969 - December 31, 2009 reply

I just rec'd that.....Happy New Year

cooliogirl47 - December 31, 2009 reply

Keith Law's Assessment

http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=4786032&name=law_keith

The Cubs’ signing of Marlon Byrd, which seems to me like too much money and too many years, could be the latest in a Groundhog Day-like series of outfielder mistakes for general manager Jim Hendry.

Marlon Byrd is a nice fourth outfielder who could play every day on a non-contender, but he doesn’t handle centerfield well enough to play it every day on a team with aspirations of playoff contention and doesn’t hit well enough to play every day in an outfield corner. He boosted his overall stats the last few years playing in a good hitters’ park in Texas, posting a .290/.339/.415 line in 516 road PA over that time, a line that won’t cut it in left or right field, and he’s no better than average defensively in center, perhaps less if he has to play it 150 times a season. He replaces Milton Bradley and Bradley’s replacements, but even with the off year Bradley was more productive for the Cubs on a rate basis than Byrd was in Texas, and the Cubs have improved by less than a win between the pair of moves.

Paying Marlon Byrd $5 million per year (although the deal is backloaded, so his salary will be increasing as he ages and his value decreases) isn’t going to sink the Cubs, nor is it an enormous loss of value, but giving a player who shouldn’t be playing every day three guaranteed years into his mid-30s seems like a risky decision. And since it comes on the heels of a deal where they had to give away the last outfielder to whom they gave a three-year contract (a deal they only pulled off by taking back one of the worst pitchers currently on a 40-man roster), it makes even less sense. The odds are good that Jim Hendry (or his successor) will be trying to dump Byrd’s contract on another club before 2012.

The Jade Scorpion - January 1, 2010 reply

So help me....

…if it is JIM HENDRY trying to dump this contract in 2012, this team deserves another century without a title. It better be his successor…………

Which of this is yours and which of it is Keith Law's?

If it’s all Law’s, you should have put it in a quote box.

Law has often dissed Cub signings. I’ll dismiss this one until I actually see Byrd play. I wasn’t in favor of a 3-year deal, but at least the first two years don’t seem too expensive.

my apologies

its all keith law, haven’t used the quote boxes before, i’ll work on that

Thanks.

Just highlight the text you want to quote, and hit the little quote icon above the posting box.

Also, try not to post the entire article, which would be a copyright violation.

Take note.

This is the logical fallacy a lot of us are making as we talk about this off-season, and if Keith Law is making it, then we can excuse ourselves a bit, but excusing doesn’t mean we shouldn’t start trying to think more clearly. Law said:

And since it comes on the heels of a deal where they had to give away the last outfielder to whom they gave a three-year contract… it makes even less sense.

How in the world does that follow? Because we had one problem three-year contract, we shouldn’t make another? And if it had been a two-year contract, couldn’t you have argued

Since it comes on the heels of a deal where they had to give away the last player to whom they gave a two-year contract (Aaron Miles)… it makes even less sense.

The logical fallacy here is that we’re coloring our view of Hendry’s 2010 moves by previous moves we don’t like. But the failure of Milton Bradley has nothing to do with the success or failure of Marlon Byrd. They are not the same kind of acquisition at all. With Bradley we were looking for a middle of the order LH bat. With Byrd we are looking for a CF. With Bradley we were looking for fire. With Byrd we are looking for a positive clubhouse presence.

Of Jim Hendry’s recent contracts, Byrd looks most like DeRosa’s and then like Jacque Jones’ – but Marlon Byrd is neither of those players. The case Law makes directly on Byrd – that he shouldn’t play every day – is worth giving thought to – but we don’t know what Jim Hendry’s final plan will be. It might make sense to platoon Byrd (v. RHP) with Fuld (v. LHP). There might yet be another addition. But I do agree that if Byrd, Sori, and Dome are all expected to play 155 games, we will be too thin in the OF.

Yet another reason we need Reed Johnson back.

agree

that all moves should be evaluated independently, that’s just Law’s “snarkiness” coming through, although I think the idea that Hendry hasn’t learned from past mistakes is what Law’s getting at, which is one of my noted concerns.

In general people view Law as very negative on most players but its because he only thinks in terms of assembling a championship contender. If you’re not contending for a title you should be rebuilding to get there. I agree with this mantra.

On a championship contender Marlon Byrd, Ryan Theriot, and Mike Fontenot/Jeff Baker aren’t the “up-the-middle” building blocks you usually see. I think his point is on a championship contender Byrd is a 4th OF type and since the Cubs are relying on him to be their starting CF for the next 3 years, its a sign they will need to be significantly better in other premier positions to contend for a title.

Law doesn’t care much for moves that get a team from 80-82 wins, or from 83-85 wins, and that’s generally what the Cubs have specialized in over the years.

A lot of this type of analysis...

… ignores the fact that the Cubs DO have other players who excel at “premier positions”, as you put it.

A lot rests on whether Alfonso Soriano returns to his 2007-08 level of performance and can stay healthy.

Soriano is important because his contract just keeps going.

But if we see two of Theriot, Fontenot, and Soto return to 2008 form, then we’ve got a much better up-the-middle team than it looks on paper right now. There’s a lot of bounceback opportunities.

ehh...

i’d say there’s bounceback for Soto and maybe Fontenot, Theriot is what he is

Soto’s the only one of the group that has “star” potential in terms of production

I agree on Theriot; but there are others here who think he can be a .380 OBP guy again, so, I included him.

Fontenot is interesting in that he plays really good defense, and had one year of awesome hitting. Maybe you don’t say he has “star” potential, but he’s got potential.

For me, Soto’s year will have a lot to say about the short-term future of this team.

cubs have stars

but not really at premier positions, the Cubs best players are at 1B, 3B, and SP those are the positions you’d find most teams best players

if your star is at 2B, SS, CF, then you have an inherent advantage over other teams because the other positions are easier to replace

Nevertheless, that star power can produce runs, as it did in 2008.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/split.cgi?t=b&team=CHC&year=2008

see... 2008

we had that star power up the middle, we had a OPS+ of 108 at C, 110 at 2B and 115 at CF

DartmouthCubsFan - January 2, 2010 reply

And 122 at 3B and 113 at LF.

Al Yellon - January 2, 2010 reply

my point is

the big production at 3B and LF isn’t what separates the team from other contenders

in 2009 our OPS+ at 3B was 120, in LF it was 94 which was an issue but not as big of an issue as the dropoffs at the premier positions

in 2007 we won just 85 games with an OPS+ of 133 at 3B and LF

having great players at 3B and LF isn’t a rarity, having them at 2B, SS, C, and CF is…

Look at teams that get to the postseason consistently and you’ll usually see valuable players up the middle

for the yankees its been jeter, posada, cano
for the red sox its been pedroia, varitek, ellsbury
for the phillies its been utley, rollins, victorino
for the twins its been mauer (largely)
for the dodgers its been kemp, furcal, martin

I agree with a lot of this.

1) I agree that in general there’s not much point in going from 80 to 83 wins.
2) I agree in general that Marlon Byrd as a primary CF for the next three years isn’ a good idea.

That said, I can’t see a CF option who is significantly better than Byrd over the next two years when you factor in the total cost of trade pieces and money. There were some trade scenarios where you look at Oakland’s guys or Ellsbury and you could like that, but we don’t know those guys are available at a reasonable cost.

As for Hendry’s “past mistakes” — my points from above remain — Marlon Byrd is a very different kind of acquisition than Bradley at a much lower cost. It’s absurd to suggest Byrd is Bradley redux.