Last week, during a discussion of what the Cubs' payroll will be for next season, someone asked if I'd do a post that sums up what the issues are in signing free agents for next year.
We know that Tom Ricketts has said that the Cubs' overall spending on baseball operations will be approximately the same as it was in 2010 -- $145 million. It was implied, however, that some of that money would be reallocated to other parts of the organization besides the major league payroll -- scouting, the minor league draft, etc.
We don't know exactly what that allocation will be, but a further implication was that the major league payroll would decline slightly. Here's a list of 2010 Opening Day team payrolls, on which the Cubs ranked at the top of NL teams and third to the Red Sox and Yankees at $146,609,000. The Phillies were second in the NL at $141,928,379, the Mets third at $134,422,942, and the World Series champion Giants a distant fourth in the National League at $98,641,333.
Clearly, among NL teams, the Giants and Phillies got their money's worth and the Cubs and Mets did not. Overall in MLB, the eight playoff teams ranked 1st (Yankees), 4th (Phillies), 9th (Giants), 10th (Twins), 15th (Braves), 19th (Rays), 20th (Reds) and 26th (Rangers) in payroll.
Thus it's not simply spending money, it's spending it wisely, that can make you a winner. We've been over and over and over the Cubs' backloaded deals that are coming back to bite them now -- that isn't the purpose of this post, so let's not belabor that issue, please. It's also not a bitch session about what player is or isn't worth what they're getting. The salaries are what they are, unless Jim Hendry can creatively move some of them.
The purpose is to show how the Cubs can creatively spend $135 million -- let's assume for now that's the number, although I am simply speculating with no inside info -- given the fact they already have more than $102 million committed to nine players for 2011. Follow me past the jump for the numbers.
The 2011 Cubs already have the following players under contract, veterans on multiyear deals (all numbers from this Cot's Baseball Contracts spreadsheet:
Alfonso Soriano, $19,000,000
Carlos Zambrano, $18,875,000
Aramis Ramirez, $14,600,000
Kosuke Fukudome, $14,500,000
Ryan Dempster, $14,500,000
Carlos Silva, $12,750,000
Marlon Byrd, $5,500,000
Jeff Samardzija, $3,500,000
John Grabow, $4,800,000
All of these numbers include pro-rated portions of signing bonuses. After subtracting $5,500,000 -- that's what the Mariners are paying for part of Carlos Silva's deal -- that leaves us with $102,525,000 for nine players; at the moment, it doesn't look like any of them are going anywhere. If the Cubs could move Fukudome and even save half of his deal, that'd be $6.75 million that could be spent elsewhere. For now, assume these players are all staying.
So of our presumed $135,000,000, we have $32,475,000 left for 16 more players on the 25-man Opening Day roster. It sounds like a lot, until you consider that three key players who will all be retained are arbitration-eligible and all had very good years in 2010: Carlos Marmol, Geovany Soto and Sean Marshall.
Marmol made $2,125,000, Marshall $975,000 and Soto $575,000 in 2010. All three players could be signed to multi-year deals this offseason -- more likely Soto and Marmol than Marshall, but in any case, all three are up for substantial raises through the arb process.
It seems likely that Marmol would be in line for a raise to be comparable in salary to what the Red Sox' Jonathan Papelbon made in 2009, his first arb-eligible season -- $6.125 million. Soto, roughly comparable to Brian McCann in 2007-2008; acknowledging it's four years later, we'll put it closer to the 2008 number, $5.5 million. For Marshall, it's tougher to make a comp, but assume he's in line to at least double, maybe a little bit more, so let's call it $2.5 million.
So that's another $14,125,000 for three players, bringing our total to $116,650,000 and leaving only $18,350,000 for the 13 players we still need to fill out the 25-man roster.
Four other 2010 Cubs are (were) arb-eligible for 2011: Angel Guzman, Tom Gorzelanny, Koyie Hill and Jeff Baker. Baker could be non-tendered; Guzman is out of the mix because he was outrighted and invited to spring training on a minor league deal. That leaves Hill; I have no idea what the Cubs will do with him. He made $700,000 last year, and even with a mediocre year, players usually get arb raises with service time; he could be on the hook for $1 million. I'd let him go. Gorzelanny made $800,000 last year and produced and almost certainly will be retained; it's his second arb-eligible season so he could get an increase to, say, $1.75 million. Adding Gorz to our number, we now have $118,400,000 for 13 players, which includes:
Four starting pitchers (Zambrano, Gorzelanny, Dempster, Silva)
Three outfielders (Soriano, Byrd, Fukudome)
A catcher (Soto)
Four relief pitchers (Marmol, Marshall, Grabow, Samardzija)
One infielder (Ramirez)
To fill out even a starting team, we need Starlin Castro and Blake DeWitt back -- they'll be renewed at either the minimum or slightly more. Let's call that $500,000 each; the Cubs also will renew Randy Wells, probably at about $700,000. Darwin Barney will be the Cubs' primary backup middle infielder at $400,000; Andrew Cashner comes back to the bullpen; he and Tyler Colvin should both get small raises to probably somewhere around $425,000.
We now have 18 players under contract for $121,325,000. So that leaves $14,675,000 for the other seven.
At $12 million a year -- his presumed price -- that doesn't leave enough room to sign Adam Dunn, unless you move Fukudome or Silva. At about $6 million a year, the Cubs could add Adam LaRoche and still have room to add a veteran reliever -- Kerry Wood would fit very well into that niche, as I have stated before. To get a veteran pitcher to fill the last slot in the rotation, Jon Garland or Javier Vazquez could fit well. The remainder of the roster could be filled with minimum-wage guys like James Russell, Justin Berg, or non-roster invitees or non-tenders from other teams.
1 recs | 381 comments
Wow
What a mess. This team is basically in limbo for another season. I’d try to patch as best I could, but guys like spellcheck, make it real tough.
KedzieKid - November 9, 2010
AL!!! HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!! (WE SHARE THE SAME BIRTHDAY!!! But your arrival arrival to this planet was YEARS before mine!!!)
Hopefully, our wish to see a Cubs World Series is near the road ahead. But wow, with this mess that you listed on this post, all I can say is…..BLOW THE CANDLES!!!
braziliancubsfan - November 9, 2010
Hey bz...Happy Belated!!!
hope you had a fun day!
cooliogirl47 - November 10, 2010
Thanks!
Yes, I did!
Al Yellon - November 10, 2010
Happy Birthday Al
Obviously belated at this point. But we appreciate the forum you provide non the less. Might as well stick around for a few more of these Birthday.
aaronb - November 10, 2010
That's good to hear.
Happy birthday, Al.
elgato - November 10, 2010
Confused re OF & SP
Aren’t you one back up outfieder short? Would the Cubs pick up right handed vet? Also
if they pick up another vet starter, they are back to the six starters problem and while one surely would like insurance against Silva in particular that is kind of a pricey luxury considering there at least some posibilities in the system like Coleman.
Doggie Stalker - November 9, 2010
I didn't specifically complete the roster.
I assume that would be a righthanded veteran, yes. I don’t know right now who that would be.
You’re right that the Cubs do have some starting pitcher options in the system including Coleman and possibly even Chris Archer, but that would mean they’d have to move Silva’s deal. Since the Mariners are paying almost half of it, it could be affordable to a team in a pitcher’s park. The Mets come to mind.
Al Yellon - November 9, 2010
If they do anything with Silva, it will be late in the offseason
Given how his 2010 ended, he is going to have to show he is healthy and able to pitch before another team would even pay him the minimum for 2011.
ClarkFan - November 9, 2010
I agree with this.
Pitchers with heart conditions aren’t exactly hot commodities.
elgato - November 9, 2010
Realistically
it is extremely unlikely to get any significant salary relief for Silva. Based on his history, physical condition, heart problem, etc. the only way the Cubs unload him is to pay nearly all his salary.
rlpete - November 9, 2010
I was just throwing in Silva because you mentioned getting another SP
and I can’t see spending 5 million plus on something which while important has to be considered a luxury.
Doggie Stalker - November 9, 2010
Nicely done, Al
I hope this exercise helps explain why it’s not about the money, but about spending the money wisely. And backloading contracts is almost always a disaster.
3744nsheffield - November 9, 2010
backloading ALL of your contracts
is a disaster…mix it in with front loading contracts and cost-controlled guys and you are ok…
hansman1982 - November 9, 2010
Sigh.
Backloading always benefits the team. It makes the contracts cost less money.
The only reason it’s hurting the Cubs at current is because the ownership change ended up dumping ballooning financial obligations onto the new ownership. In general you should be aiming to backload every deal you can, all things being equal.
Wreckard - November 9, 2010
You're assuming your assets don't aggressively depreciate.
When you backload a player whose performance will drop significantly year after year, you’ll end up paying paying to retain an asset that no longer has relative value.
Flatley - November 9, 2010
And you're looking at the assets in terms of annual costs
MLB contracts are guaranteed, therefore you have to look at the total cost of the contract, not the annual cost of the asset.
It doesn’t really matter if you have to pay later for something you get now when it doesn’t cost you more to get it.
Wreckard - November 9, 2010
You're not accounting for payroll situations like what we're seeing now.
The ballooning of several contracts between 2010-11 essentially created a logjam. The Cubs backloaded a bunch of contracts at essentially the same time. You’re logic works if the Cubs had backloaded two contracts in 2006, two in 2007, two in 2008, etc.
Instead, they backloaded a bunch of deals at or near the same time — and they did it with a bunch of players who were aging and would produce diminishing results.
elgato - November 9, 2010
The Cubs situation is complicated by the ownership change
Any team not changing owners would have planned accordingly knowing that payroll would be ballooning in the future.
However, they changed owners in the middle of those contracts, with the Ricketts essentially inheriting just the backloaded parts of the contracts.
I wouldn’t judge the strategy of backloading contracts by the Cubs current situation, given the unique situation surrounding the previous owners, the ownership change, and the fact that some of the contracts were inadvisable.
Wreckard - November 9, 2010
Well, I partly agree.
Backloading contracts isn’t a terrible idea. But backloading several inadvisable contracts at the same time when ownership was changing? Talk about a perfect storm.
elgato - November 9, 2010
As Wreckard said...
…. it was the circumstances. They thought they could win a WS in 2007, 2008 or 2009… if that had happened, we’d probably not care quite so much.
Getting some of those deals off the books after 2011 should help going forward.
Al Yellon - November 9, 2010
The thing of it is, Al...
… I remember very clearly people, yourself included, saying things like “If we win a World Series, nobody will care” back in the offseason of 2006. Such sentiments seem to embrace the fact that there was no degree of planning that could prepare us for 2010 and 2011. The circumstances may have contributed, but the move was of itself more than a little risky. I would also argue that 2007’s and 2008’s offseasons, which led us to our current predicament, took place as a direct result of these signings.
Flatley - November 9, 2010
I'll agree it was risky.
However, let’s say the Cubs won the WS in 2008. We’d still be basking in the afterglow of that, and even with the contracts the way they are now, it wouldn’t be viewed as that bad a thing, since the Cubs had “just” won.
Also, a WS win in 2008 would likely have made the deals and signings made after that quite different.
For one thing, [name redacted] would likely never have been in Cub pinstripes.
Al Yellon - November 9, 2010
Oh, sure.
We’d all have our World Series memorabilia, Blu-Ray collectibles, and tattoos commemorating the moment. But, as you say, that changes the scenario so drastically that you can’t fathom what the 2010 team would have looked like.
The problem that I have is with the planning that took place. You shouldn’t plan for what happens after the best, but what happens after the worst. Anybody can let a bet ride after winning. The question is what you do after you lose.
But that may be getting too close to complaining about the past. I only discuss as a frame-up for how to handle a backloaded Adam Dunn contract, which sits oh so poorly with me.
Flatley - November 9, 2010
the problem is the team they put on the field
wasn’t very likely to win the world series
From 2007-2010, the window opened up by all the backloading won the following amount of games:
85
97
83
75
that’s an average of 85 wins a season. They built the equivalent of an 85 win team for a 4 year period, and looking through the history of baseball, 85 win teams don’t generally win titles
DartmouthCubsFan - November 9, 2010
Which goes back to my point ...
the Cubs backloaded deals for the wrong players.
elgato - November 9, 2010
Unless I'm misreading Wreckard
I think his point is that, had their not been a ownership shift, the organization likely would’ve done a better job in planning as it relates to contracts. The situation that arose here that was the catalyst to the problems was that there was an ownership change, and as a result, previous ownership, the Trib/Zell, was fine with dumping the remaining issue on Ricketts/new ownership.
toonsterwu - November 9, 2010
Well summarized, that's exactly it
Wreckard - November 9, 2010
Nevertheless, it's done.
There’s nothing that can be done about it, and many of those deals come off the books after 2011.
Al Yellon - November 9, 2010
Well, there is something that could be done about it.
The guy who signed the deal could finally be held accountable and lose his job.
Now, I’m not saying that Hendry should be fired now — I’m OK with giving him one more year. But saying that there’s no way to change things just isn’t true.
elgato - November 9, 2010
deals
elgato - November 9, 2010
That's too much indictment for me
What started as a discussion of backloading vs. not backloading contracts is now an unqualified acqusation of the Tribune re: player contracts.
Let’s take out the sinister motive (let’s hose the next Cubs owner) here. Do you think it’s possible that the TribCo guys just wanted to maximize profits even, by backloading a contract? Yes – more profit today = a better bonus for me. I could see this happening even if the Tribune had stayed owners of the Cubs.
And does anyone think these contracts were a surprise to the Ricketts and their due diligence team when they were developing their offer for the Cubs? No, I’m sure they fully understood the cost and length of those contracts and accounted for them in the offer.
RiskyBusiness - November 9, 2010
re:
first, I was just trying to sum up what I thought Wreckard was saying (and seems like I did a decent job of that). I hadn’t actually given much thought about the issue until typing right now.
I don’t think the Trib was intentionally thinking that they were going to hose the next owner. I do think they were
a) Trying to drive up short term profits, which backloading helps
b) Trying to boost up the value of the org to sell it
Were they intentionally trying to screw the next owner (that is, was that their stated motivation)? I would doubt anyone that argued that, and I don’t think Wreckard is arguing that. I probably could’ve worded the last sentence of my above post better, ,which is my fault.
I think what Wreckard and I are both saying is this – since the organization was trying to build up short term profits and boost it’s value, for them, their long range planning meant backloading the contracts made sense, since it accomplishes their goals of making the club look better. Long range planning, thus, wasn’t a consideration of the financial impact of such maneuvers 4 years down the road, but rather, what improves their general situation as it pertains to selling the club. With another organization, there might be more careful consideration of the long term impact of the payroll, but their focus was on their a specific goal, which I certainly can’t fault them for.
toonsterwu - November 9, 2010
I agree in part
a) Trying to drive up short term profits, which backloading helps – Yes, just like Sales vs Service; great deal when I sold it, your problem to service it.
b) Trying to boost up the value of the org to sell it – I’m not sure an accountant would consider these contracts as a value. Not when he’s putting a price tag on the Cubs.
RiskyBusiness - November 9, 2010
Star players are part of the value of your team
Keep in mind a player’s value is almost always greater than the contract they’re signed to. They aren’t just an on-field asset that attracts attention, they’re also, essentially your intellectual property, free for your use in promotions, merchandising, and advertising.
As fans we only care about a player’s value on the field, which may or may not be directly related to their value as an asset to that accountant. I doubt the people valuing the team were looking at $WAR.
Wreckard - November 9, 2010
But I can always get another Star player
There is no way that the Tribune looked at the Ricketts and said “Look at all these long-term contracts you have in place that you build promotions around.”
That Star value is very relative; if it’s not the Star player it’s another guy. If I can hear Twins fans yelling “Slow” at Wrigley field for Kevin Slowey, I know anybody can be rooted for. If “The Riot” can sell jerseys…
RiskyBusiness - November 9, 2010
That’s an odd narrative to assign there. I’m sure Ricketts’ accountants looked at the team’s assets – including infrastructure, IP, personnel and so on and made an assessment of the value of the team and subtracted the financial obligations of the team – including maintenance, debt, payroll, and etc.
The idea that the accountants were in there debating whether Z is an ace, or whether Soriano was overpaid, or really talking about the baseball value of any of these guys is pretty absurd. Players are moveable pieces, and part of the short-term value of your team.
I think the thing you’re missing is that the value of the player is significantly greater than their contract – after all, these are businesses making a profit from reselling them. I’m sure even a bad player is a profitable endeavor for a team.
Star Players are rare commodities. There are at most a hundred or two of them in the world, and only a few dozen available each year for purchase.
Wreckard - November 9, 2010
Where did I imply accounts doing player evaluations?
Why would the accountant care about that? I don’t know why you brought up “Star” players to begin with, when this started being about backloaded contracts. There is no link between the two. Star player on the Cubs? Starlin Castro. Backloaded contract = none.
This doesn’t make sense. How can a star player be this increase to the value of the team, yet be so easily removed from the equation?
This is Finance, plan and simple. There is a revenue stream and an expense stream. Ricketts accountants were saying this – “You’re stuck with the following payroll obligations for each of the following years. It would be nice if that was less. we have debt to pay back”
yeah, someone said that about sub-prime mortgages too. Or Milton Bradley – how’d he work out for profitability?
Ask yourself this – You’re buying a baseball team. Would you prefer to have Zero payroll obligations in your Year One, or 100% of your payroll locked in? Yes, that’s an extreme example. A more rational question would be “Do you want more payroll obligations or less payroll obligations?” I’ll take the less payroll obligations.
RiskyBusiness - November 9, 2010
You're kind of just flailing wildly here.
There’s no correlation between the quality of a player and the size of his contract?
Because it’s an asset other people would want. Diamonds are a valuable asset for a jewelry store. They are also highly movable.
That’s only part of valuing a team. The value of a business is also determined by the assets it controls. Businesses with high barriers to entry are that way because the assets are rare and expensive.
If it was that simple, the Cubs would have had a complete fire sale, trading off every contract they could to reduce their payroll, even at a discount. However they didn’t do that. Why? Because those players, even overpriced, provide value to the team.
So you’d rather buy a business with no employees, than a business that has employees, some of whom may be overpaid? That’s not rational, it’s ridiculous.
Wreckard - November 9, 2010
Wow, you changed you tune a lot here
You started by saying this
And now you moved to this
At first it appears that you think the TribCo dump backloaded contracts on the Ricketts and that it is bad. And now you’re trying to say that those large contracts are actually good for the Cubs because the players have star power. Which is it? I can’t reconcile these two points.
I understand the desire and need to backload contracts. And I understand intangible marketing value a player can bring to a team. But I think for Soriano, his marketing value was at its’ highest in the first 2 years of his deal when he was being paid the least amount.
I would like to see one article that mentioned how much value the Ricketts got from the contracts they inherited. Because I know the topic of the Cubs payroll constraints has been well documented.
And yes, all other things being equal (net income from the business,etc) between 2 business – I would much rather buy a business with no employee than buy a business with employees. As today’s economy shows, you can always hire people.
RiskyBusiness - November 10, 2010
It’s almost as though I’m saying what were bad baseball decisions may have been good business decisions. I’m not sure you even know what we’re talking about at this point.
Wow. Good luck with that.
Wreckard - November 10, 2010
I wish it was just me saying this but it's not
Here’s the Forbes team valuations. You will not find one reference to backloaded contracts, star players increasing team value, etc.
Nope, it’s team value, debt/value, revenues, and operating income. If you had no team allegiance and you were buying a team, you’d want the Florida Marlins – cheap and with the highest operating income.
RiskyBusiness - November 9, 2010
Great points RiskyBusiness
I got to agree with you on this.
There are so many holes in Wreckard’s theory that I don’t know where to start. You did a great job with your rebuttals
cubsnlinux - November 10, 2010
It's not my theory
From here (warning: PDF)
Basically, the moral of the story is that the 2007-2008 spending spree helped lead to a massive increase in the value of the franchise.
Wreckard - November 10, 2010
OK, that I can start to buy into
The 2007-08 spending increased the teams value. I think this strategy is just a short term fix and not a sustainable winning strategy. I will not be surprised if the 2011 value for the Cubs decreases, given the lower attendance from 2010 leading to lower projected ticket sales in 2011.
If you’re interested, I found the Forbes 2009 Cubs value which included historical snapshots of value, revenue, player expenses, and operating income.
RiskyBusiness - November 10, 2010
There was actually no risk involved to the ownership that oversaw that
They knew they were selling the team, so they were inflating the value of the team by achieving maximum success and loading the roster with “stars” (which actually contributes value to the selling price of the team).
The ownership didn’t really care if the deals were sound, they were driving attendance and value (in the sense of how it influenced the sale of the team).
2 things went wrong that have made these decisions seem especially bad:
1) Many of the players have underperformed at a rate that would not have been predicted
2) The economy tanked, which made the backloaded portions of the deals more expensive than they were projected to be at the time they were signed
Wreckard - November 9, 2010
Agreed.
And again, I think we would all have a different view if a “2008 Cubs World Champions” flag were flying above Wrigley Field right now.
Al Yellon - November 9, 2010
Why are we discussing
the significance of something that never happened? The Ricketts made a business decision to pay $845M for a 95% ownership interest. The fact that the team has very bad since they purchased it seems the only reality.
Many bad business decisions happen. But to suggest the customers should pay for the msitakes seems to be the real issue to me. The Ricketts had full knowledge of the assets they were buying. Now the fans of the Cubs are expected to bail out their poor judgment. That’s a bitter pill to swallow.
tharr - November 9, 2010
What?
How are the fans supposed to bail the Cubs out? The Cubs aren’t asking for government money. They’re increasing ticket prices in some instances.
The fans have a very easy way to refuse a bail out: Stop buying tickets.
elgato - November 9, 2010
The Cubs were a bad team last year
and next year doesn’t look much better. Now the fans are asked to continue to pay the highest price in baseball because the Ricketts are financially strapped. That’s my idea of a bailout.
tharr - November 9, 2010
Don't pay for tickets.
And you won’t feel like you’re bailing anyone out.
elgato - November 9, 2010
That's nonsense
Are you claiming ticket buyers are the only source of income for the Cubs?
tharr - November 9, 2010
Of course not.
But how does it affect you, personally? Will it cost you more to watch the Cubs on TV? Are the Cubs asking for public money?
elgato - November 10, 2010
It's personally offensive
to be asked to pay owner for a substandard product. And yes, the public is subsiding the team. When the team was sold, the $825M in capital gains tax was forgiven. Both of us are making up that lost tax revenue. And through another tax dodge, the sale allows the Ricketts to depreciate their cost to the tune of about $56M per year.
tharr - November 11, 2010
Wow, you must have a lot of anger.
There’s a simple solution to this: don’t buy that product. That’s kind of how capitalism works!
If you made all your purchasing decisions based on what companies were dodging taxes in sketchy and selfish ways, you’d never spend a dime.
Wreckard - November 11, 2010
I thought we had put to rest
the old “Love it or Leave it” option. Perhaps indignation at ethical standards may seem naive to you, but they are very real to me.
tharr - November 11, 2010
well said
Cubbie-Tim - November 9, 2010
Agreed.
But, again, the problem wasn’t simply backloading contracts. It was the players who were signed to backloaded contracts.
elgato - November 9, 2010
Wait till next Year
We must avoid the cellar at all costs!
diamondjim - November 9, 2010
Nice Post
Where’s the FA Frenzy Contest AL??
cubsluver22 - November 9, 2010
Has MLB started theirs yet?
Al Yellon - November 9, 2010
Not Sure
Was looking at Tim Dierkes predictions and wandered when we could get that post started here.
cubsluver22 - November 9, 2010
It doesn't appear that MLB has started theirs yet.
When they do, I’ll get something together here.
Al Yellon - November 9, 2010
One is off the table already
as Peralta resigned with Tigers. No real surprise though.
rlpete - November 9, 2010
Well laid out but I still think Dunn in the picture
If the Cubs have payroll around $138 Million (still a decrease) then Dunn could be signed. I just have a hard time believing the Cubs would do nothing which is what an Adam LaRoche and middle reliever would be.
rlpete - November 9, 2010
Stay away from Dunn
Dunn isn’t gonna make or break us anyway this season. We need to lay low one more year. After next season the big $$$ comes off the books and we should have a better idea of what we have in terms of young talent.
cubsluver22 - November 9, 2010
I'm not saying I would sign him
just that I think the Cubs are going to do something.
rlpete - November 9, 2010
Actually
The NL Central is an eminently winnable division, adding a left-handed power bat as consistent as Dunn would go a long way toward “fixing” the offensive problems we had in ‘10. Sure, other things have to happen, ARam needs to stay healthy and productive for one, but just winning the division or wild card is all it takes and then who knows. Given what went wrong this year and what went right before I can’t see any reason why the Cubs shouldn’t try to improve themselves this offseason. Yeah, money is coming off the books next year and if we sign Dunn it will still be coming off the books next year. Unless you think we’re the front runners for AGon then there isn’t any reason to settle on something less than Dunn if he can be fit into payroll.
pageian - November 9, 2010
Agreed
I just cringe at the idea of “waiting for Adrian Gonzalez”.
It reminds me of “waiting for Furcal” and “waiting for Beltran” and “Waiting for Miggy Tejada”
Chances are extremely high that you can get Dunn right now if you want him. Are we nearly as sure that Gonzalez is just going to sign what we put in front of him in 2011?
Is a 29 year old Gonzalez on an 8 year 160 million dollar deal, really smarter use of resources than a 31 year old Adam Dunn on a 4/48 contract?
aaronb - November 9, 2010
if its 4/48
then yes…3/36 or 2/24 with option then ok
hansman1982 - November 9, 2010
It's just amazing to me we have some much payroll
tied up in a small group of players.
mrcubsfan - November 9, 2010
As was said by many (including me) when these deals were given out...
… if the Cubs had won the World Series in 2007 or 2008, we wouldn’t care so much.
Al Yellon - November 9, 2010
It's not the size of the group of players, it's the overall contributions they provided in 2010
Spend $100M on the right 9 players and your team is in the World Series. Spend that money on the Cubs’ Mudville Nine and you are fighting not to finish last.
And Soriano’s millstone contract has another 3 years to run after 2011 – he may be playing LF in a wheelchair by 2014.
ClarkFan - November 9, 2010
at least the Cubs
arent paying him $25-30 million a year for the next 7…like the Yankees are doing with Rodriguez
hansman1982 - November 9, 2010
I guess we were thinking the same
imacubman - November 9, 2010
The relevancy of large contracts
to the Yanks are much less of a burden than they are to the Cubs. When did you hear that the Yankees were limited going into free agency?
tharr - November 9, 2010
yankees do a better job of stacking their obligations
as to have obligations consistently rolling off, or positions opening up to be able to spend.
I covered this in a lengthy post mid-season talking about the value of ROSTER flexibility as well as payroll flexibility
DartmouthCubsFan - November 10, 2010
Soriano
Soriano wasnt that bad last year. If he just stays healthy we could do worse. He is overpaid,
for these numbers. 258 .322 .496 .818 . But he got 17 mil
These stats got 33 mil 270 .341 .506 .847 . Yeah Arod. and look at the players around him.
Better numbers, but 16 mil better? if sori just keeps those numbers for a few more years, with the salaries going crazy, he is almost a bargain.;)
imacubman - November 9, 2010
That has been the Crux of Hendry's problem as a GM
He just seems to be so non-confrontational at all times. I can’t think of ANY free agent or even Re-signing that he has done that hasn’t been 15-20% ABOVE market at the time.
Rewarding guys for hard work is one thing. Being a patsy for every agent in Baseball is another thing entirely.
aaronb - November 9, 2010
iirc
ARam’s deal was considered a hometown discount at the time he signed it.
pageian - November 9, 2010
Many people (myself included) didn't think so
The deal was fair monetarily. However it gave Aramis ALL the leverage by giving him one way player options and opt outs. This was the same issue we had with his 2004 contract as well.
He plays well, he opts out and can get free agent money (like he did in 2006, with 2 years left on the 2004 contract)
He doesn’t play up to the contract in 2008-today, yet he still holds the Cubs liable for almost 18 million in guaranteed monies.
While it certainly wasn’t as bad as other contracts. A better negotiator would/should have been able to seek some protection at some point.
aaronb - November 9, 2010
Same with Lee
Musicdude10 - November 9, 2010
Good write up, Al
Question, though: Why are the Cubs intent on signing a starting pitcher? With Zambrano, Dempster, Gorzo, Wells and Silva, I’m sort of at a loss as to why a team in the Cubs’ current situation — i.e. little money to address some major needs — would add someone like Jon Garland, who is nothing more than a good No. 3 starter. No disrespect to Garland.
If I’m the Cubs, I roll the dice with what we have and add to the offense. This is especially true considering that Archer might be in Chicago in 2011. I know pitching is king, but I just don’t see the rotation as a top-tier need — unless the Cubs could add a legit ace.
elgato - November 9, 2010
You may be right.
I was just posting a few options. A SP should be fairly low on the shopping list.
Al Yellon - November 9, 2010
Actually, I think you're correctly gauging the Cubs' wishes.
I was trying to see if you or anybody else understand the team’s thinking. I could get behind a low-risk, high-reward signing like Brandon Webb, but I don’t see much point in giving three years to a No. 3 starter.
But that seems to be one of the Cubs’ goals.
elgato - November 9, 2010
I wouldn't do that, either.
Al Yellon - November 9, 2010
Any idea why the Cubs would?
The only thing I can figure is that they have almost no confidence in everybody but Dempster.
elgato - November 9, 2010
Or...
… maybe they consider some of the younger pitchers tradeable, for other parts.
Al Yellon - November 9, 2010
That's an interesting theory.
elgato - November 9, 2010
That's really the only way I see the Cubs going after an "innings eater" kind of SP.
Perhaps dealing Wells and Gorz is something they are considering… and thus need more SP fill-ins?
fsuapollo - November 9, 2010
My hunch
is that the Cubs are doing what I anticipated – trying to insure that their starting rotation can eat up more innings, with the subsequent hope that the middle relief benefits as a result o it.
My spec/guess is that, unless they clear more space to make a run at a higher cost player (like a Dunn), that they will wait on adding the lefty first baseman (see what’s left at the end type move) and try to address pitching (bullpen or starting) first.
toonsterwu - November 9, 2010
I hope you're wrong.
That seems backward to me.
elgato - November 9, 2010
on the former or the latter?
the 2nd part, I’m not really against (waiting and see whichever lefty is left, assuming that they can’t land a big fish through FA (which is basically Dunn, and in the Dunn scenario, the years he wants would make me wary) or a trade).
One other thing I could see happening is for the Cubs to trade some of their cost-controlled guys to fill some holes. AzPhil brought this up over at TCR in a recent post, and I, along with others, have mentioned it before. For example, Darwin Barney could be a starting SS for some 2nd tier teams in the majors, so shopping a guy who would be a utility infielder for us to try and fill a key holes is an intriguing enough idea considering our limitations.
I also mildly wonder if the Cubs will consider parting with Randy Wells this offseason if they get a big enough return. Everyone sort of forgets about him when discussing our top trade chips, but a 28 year old cost-controlled starter, with limited innings, a workhorse body, and back to back solid years is a valuable commodity. It would take a big deal for me to be happy with the Cubs parting with Wells, though. I tend to think he was bashed a bit too much this year when he was a solid, innings eating, middle of the rotation type of guy.
Thinking randomly right now, the best way to clear contract space may be to package Fukudome to a 2nd tier team and offer up some young, cost-controlled guys (like Barney). You’ll still have to eat some money, but it may help save some.
toonsterwu - November 9, 2010
It seems backwards ...
because I think we have starting pitching depth. I would rather go after a bat than an innings eater.
elgato - November 9, 2010
sure
but is there a huge difference between say, Lyle Overbay, Adam LaRoche, Lance Berkman, Nick Johnson (just four possibilities that we might end up going after)? I might prioritize Aubrey Huff ahead of those 4, but I think Huff stays in San Francisco. If you think there’s a difference, then sure, go after your target first. If not, a case could be made to address other needs first and picking up the cheapest one in the end.
toonsterwu - November 9, 2010
I can see that.
I’m holding out hope that the market for Dunn is pretty lean. I’m unclear as to why a guy who got 2 years and $20 million in after 2008 — when he was two years younger and slightly more versatile — would get 4 years and $48 million now.
If Dunn slips to 2 years, $25 million — which doesn’t seem out of the question, based on what I’ve seen and read — the Cubs could make a play.
elgato - November 9, 2010
I could see the Tigers going higher
if they can convince Dunn and Cabrera to split the 1B/DH duties
davidalanu - November 9, 2010
I have a hard time seeing
Dunn agreeing to DH duties unless he gets a ton more money. He just abhors the idea of being a DH. I think that alone might lead him to prioritize NL teams ahead of AL teams unless, as noted, there’s enough money to compensate for that.
toonsterwu - November 9, 2010
Which is why we should hope the Tigers sign Crawford, the Giants sign Huff and the Nats sign Cliff Lee.
If those three things happen, I don’t see how Dunn gets four years.
elgato - November 9, 2010
So am I missing something...
when I say I have heard nothing about Lee and the Nats before? I try and stay up to date here and mlbtr, but haven’t seen anything on this. i see no chance.
CubFan90 - November 10, 2010
Looks unlikely, but they have interest:
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/washington_nationals/index.html
elgato - November 10, 2010
they've got money to burn
i doubt they land him either, but i mean, the Nats might be one of the few teams that might be able to put up a financial package competitive with the Yankees, as ludicrous as that may sound typing it out right now. They really want to make a huge splash and are willing to spend.
toonsterwu - November 10, 2010
Now this I have heard.
I’m also hearing rumblings that the Pirates may be looking to make a significant splash this offseason. I’d be interested to see what that means for a team consistently as bad as they have been, but young talent can surpise you sometimes, and some good FA’s could help them move up a few spots.
CubFan90 - November 10, 2010
I have my doubts on the Pirates
being able to make that splash. With Washington, there’s a bit more hope for veterans that are interested. Come 2012, the rotation could be quite good, while a guy like ryan Zimmerman will be in his prime. the Pirates need their young guys to develop. If they make a splash now, I think it’s a poor move. They’ve got a lot of potential – one of the more intriguing farms in the minor, but a lot of talent is in the lower levels, particularly the arms.
toonsterwu - November 10, 2010
Agreed
The Cubs have jumped to early on FA hitters in the past when cheaper/better options signed later with other teams – MB for 3 years, when the LAA got Abreau for a 1 year deal.
RiskyBusiness - November 9, 2010
This a thousand times.
When you are looking for fill-in, stopgap type guys… WAIT.
fsuapollo - November 9, 2010
someone needs to talk to JH quickly because this is correct!!!
TJ11 - November 10, 2010
And they really can't get much of a starting pitcher for the money they have
Right now, they have to sign a 1B, because unless your scenario is that Colvin moves there, they have no one on the 25-man roster to play the position (assuming Nady and Hoffpaiur are gone). Even the low-cost 1B options only leave enough money for a mop-up quality starter or speculation on an injury recovery.
ClarkFan - November 9, 2010
Unless Al's trade bait theory is right ...
the only logic that seems to apply for signing someone like Garland for multiple years is the “you can never have too much pitching” logic. And, frankly, the Cubs have greater needs right now.
elgato - November 9, 2010
Are there indications that they are seriously interested in a Garland type?
rlpete - November 9, 2010
One of the Chicago papers mentioned him over the weekend.
The Cubs’ level of interest is impossible to gauge, http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-spt-1107-cubs-free-agents-chicago-20101106,0,2946576.story.
But the story does say a starting pitcher is the Cubs’ second-biggest need. I guess Sullivan could be pulling that out of his ass …
elgato - November 9, 2010
Yeah SPs are the second biggest need behind 1B
No, they are the third biggest need behind 1B and the bullpen.
No, they are the fourth biggest need behind 1B, the bullpen, and a RH hitting RF.
Among the Cubs’ biggest needs are….
Just like the Monty Python Spanish Inquisition sketch.
ClarkFan - November 9, 2010
i really doubt that
a RH hitting RF is high up on their need list right now. I imagine that they will wait to address that, and that they might simply bring back Jeff Baker. All indications are that they want to let Tyler Colvin run with it, so I don’t think they’d prioritize what is essentially, as of now, a bench bat.
toonsterwu - November 9, 2010
+1
Colvin’s value (versus Fukudome’s) is that he isn’t viewed as a platoon player.
elgato - November 9, 2010
I don' like the "sign him to trade him" scenarios - ask the As how that worked out with Sheets
Garland may not have a lot left in the tank – any team that signs him better be happy with what they pay him for the pitching he will give them, not count on a greater fool later.
ClarkFan - November 9, 2010
Al's theory was the Garland would be signed so the Cubs could trade some of their young pitching.
elgato - November 9, 2010
I don't like that idea much, either
This team is already plenty old and doesn’t need to get older. It is never a good sign when key elements of the Opening Day lineup take to the field behind walkers…..
ClarkFan - November 9, 2010
I totally agree.
To me, I’d go with the starters we already have. There are a lot of ifs, but I don’t see much point in adding a No. 3 starter to a team that (potentially) has three of them waiting in the wings.
I wouldn’t mind a reclamation project signing, but I don’t see the value in signing a veteran No. 3 starter for multiple years.
elgato - November 9, 2010
Garland is only 31.
Al Yellon - November 9, 2010
True -- Garland isn't that old.
But going with him over Gorzo or Wells is certainly making the team older.
elgato - November 9, 2010
True.
I’m not advocating signing him and I certainly wouldn’t give him a three-year deal. That would be nuts.
Al Yellon - November 9, 2010
I bet Garland gets at least two years.
elgato - November 9, 2010
Then I wouldn't do it.
Al Yellon - November 9, 2010
Wouldn't Garland get money similar to what Randy Wolf got?
Or what Lilly got?
elgato - November 9, 2010
That much?
Geez, maybe. He made $6.75m last year. That’s a pretty large increase if he gets Lilly money.
Al Yellon - November 9, 2010
But he'll get paid off his numbers.
Which were very good, even though they are Petco inflated.
Garland is one of the more attractive FA SPs… a commodity that always gets paid.
I could easily see him getting a 2/18 or 3/27 kind of deal, neither of which I have any interest in the Cubs providing.
fsuapollo - November 9, 2010
Exactly.
elgato - November 9, 2010
There is so little FA SP.
Someone will be willing to overpay for Garland.
BucknerKongCardenal - November 9, 2010
I agree
Unless we can get Lee or trade for Greinke, which I dont see either happening, run with what we have and hope for someone to get hot.
imacubman - November 9, 2010
SP
I agree with elgato, why would the Cubs be looking at a middle of the road SP as has been widely speculated.
I would love to see the Cubs go after Cliff Lee, but, aside from him I don’t see many options available that are more attractive that what we have in house.
WGNstatic - November 9, 2010
I love koolaid
As bad , and I mean REALLY bad, we were in the first half of the season last year, If we can just get a couple of decent pieces, we will be able to compete next year. We will need our $ guys to step up, which they are capable of, but it can happen. We all know what Rami, Sori and Z can do. do they always do it, NO, but if they can earn thier salaries for a year and some other pieces come together, who knows.
I didnt like the Grabow move, but even I didnt expect what we got last year. He isnt the best out there, but he can be better than that.
imacubman - November 9, 2010
This is a good point. Grabow was clearly hurt last year and that’s why he was so bad. Is he worth the $ he’ll be getting? Probably not, but if he can match some of the years he had with the Pirates, the Cubs bullpen will be improved.
Al Yellon - November 9, 2010
'Probably not'?
I don’t think there’s a lefty setup man in the game who’s making as much. Even if Grabow pitches to career norms, he won’t be worth $4.8 million.
elgato - November 9, 2010
true
but he hardly played last year. He hasn’t been that bad through his career.
imacubman - November 9, 2010
I agree.
Last year was historically awful for Grabow. He was the Aaron Miles of 2010.
But he’ll never be worth $4.8 million.
elgato - November 9, 2010
Which is why the Grabow move was lunacy
Under what conditions would anyone ever think he would be worth $4.8 million?
rlpete - November 9, 2010
You would have to ask Jim Hendry that question...
But don’t expect a coherent answer.
ClarkFan - November 9, 2010
Please remember what I said about this post
Let’s look forward, not back. The salaries are what they are. All we can hope is that no more bad deals are given out.
Al Yellon - November 9, 2010
Guilty as charged :-)
rlpete - November 9, 2010
I'm not here to talk about the past.
elgato - November 9, 2010
Those who cannot learn from the past are doomed to repeat it...
ClarkFan - November 9, 2010
The past is a bucket of ashes.
Might as well rebuild.
BucknerKongCardenal - November 9, 2010
Psh. Just ask TJ.
Grabow will not allow a single hit/walk next year, and Soriano will steal 45 bases. Because they are AMAZING!!!
CubFan90 - November 10, 2010
Right.
If healthy, there’s little reason to believe that Grabow won’t be an expensive, but league-average middle reliever… which is an upgrade from 2010.
fsuapollo - November 9, 2010
I am mildly optimistic for next year
With these guys, if they all just play to career norms we should be able to compete in the NL Central, The Reds should settle down a bit from last year and obviously the Cards will do better. I think this team is .500 with a plugged-in competant manager. Add a decent 1b (Adam LaRoche) and a Wood type reliever and this team might have a couple people get hot, ARam is entering a contract year, Soriano is another year removed from injury, Fukudome is improving, Byrd will not be as good, Castro should improve, Colvin will probably be about the same, 2b is iffy but the bullpen should be markedly improved.
Again, maybe a .500 team and if 2-3 guys can have career years we might make it to 85-87 wins and serious contention in the central.
hansman1982 - November 9, 2010
Hmmm...
The central will be interesting next year. I wouldn’t assume the Cards will do much better, they have to make some hard decisions now that TLR will be back. If they spend a lot of money on needs they risk being unable to sign Pujols during the year, so until or unless that happens, it remains to be seen if they upgrade their team significantly. Yes, their current regulars will probably perform better than last year, whether that puts them in a strong leading position in front of the Reds, I don’t know. At the least to me it will probably be a weak division again that is very winnable.
Sandberg's evil twin - November 9, 2010
Here's an idea.
Tweet from SI.com’s Jon Morosi:
So — what about signing Francoeur to be Fukudome’s RH platoon partner? He made $5m in 2010. He could probably be had for a little less.
He rakes against LHP: .299/.343/.481 in 901 career AB.
At the right price, he’d be a good pickup. He’s got World Series experience now, too.
Al Yellon - November 9, 2010
he is a decent hitter
and plays very good defense. he has a strong arm.
imacubman - November 9, 2010
I would think this 5th outfield spot
would need some 1st base experience (pending the Colvin experiment). Not sure what RH 1st base/outfield types are likely to be non-tendered.
rlpete - November 9, 2010
Maybe Francoeur could learn to play 1B.
Al Yellon - November 9, 2010
Possible
Other RH outfield types that could be available are players like Kearns and Burrell. Francoeur would be better than them.
One true RH 1B/OF type that could be available is Conor Jackson. I really don’t know what happened to him. He was a .300 hitter in 2008. I wonder if Rudy could do anything with him. There is definitely upside potential with him. I could be wrong but I thought I heard that there were some attitude issues with him.
rlpete - November 9, 2010
Valley Fever
He got Valley Fever, which I can verify living in Arizona, kicks the crap out of you. You are just exhausted all the time even after 12hours sleep. You feel weak beyond belief. He apparently lost almost 40lbs due to it. Being he only made 3mil/year for 2009 and 2010. I think he could be a very cheap 1.5/2MM option for 1B/OF. I think a 2 year 5MM would be a good offer and a holdover if the Cubs intend to get a better 1B later on when better ones are available.
ubercubsfan - November 9, 2010
Hmm.
Interesting. If Jackson is healthy again, he could be a real good cheap pickup.
Al Yellon - November 9, 2010
Now look who's into dumpster diving!
Just kidding, Al.
elgato - November 9, 2010
Maybe there's somebody getting over the plague that could be had for cheap
davidalanu - November 9, 2010
LOL
Point taken. But Jackson wasn’t injured, just sick.
Al Yellon - November 9, 2010
I think the Cubs should give him a good looking at for 1B even though he doesn't hit from the left side.
ubercubsfan - November 9, 2010
Francoeur at 1B
That would make sense from his perspective. He is clearly leaving going to have to fight for a MLB job for the next few years and the more flexibility he has the better.
WGNstatic - November 9, 2010
Francouer at first would negate the only area in which he is above average
Wreckard - November 9, 2010
The idea of Francoeur at 1B.....
… would just be as a backup, not as primary 1B.
Al Yellon - November 9, 2010
if you are going to do that
then bringing back Jeff Baker makes more sense to me. Sure, he’s not the defensive player that Francoeur is in RF, but he rakes lefties, and has positional versatility.
toonsterwu - November 9, 2010
obstacles
francoeur doesn’t view himself as a platoon OF so his first choice isn’t going to be to come to the cubs. i’m not sure he’ll find a starting job this offseason but it’s not impossible.
circuitclout - November 9, 2010
Jeff Francouer?
Seriously, $4 million for Jeff Francouer? Yeah, he hits lefties but you could hit righties better. That .300 obp is not going to help and he strikes out 16% of the time. Yuck.
Way better to keep Fuld for 400K and spend that money on Wood or Crain or Putz.
SouthWabashSoul - November 9, 2010
I'm against it.
Not because Francoeur is a terrible player, but because signing him would signal that the Cubs are going with Kosuke over Colvin — or Kosuke/Francoeur in right and Colvin at first.
And that’s a big old plate of PASS from me.
elgato - November 9, 2010
It better be half that cost.
There’s no reason to pay $3-4M for a platoon OF (see: Nady).
If you can get Frenchy in for $2M, fine.
fsuapollo - November 9, 2010
Francoeur is an out machine who thinks a walk is something you'd find in a Chinese restaurant
He is terrible.
Wreckard - November 9, 2010
I don't know if Francouer is terrible.
But he’s certainly not good. He’s Xavier Nady with better health and less versatility. We should spend our money more wisely.
elgato - November 9, 2010
He rakes lefthanded pitching.
As a platoon outfielder, he’d be useful, especially since his defense is above average.
Al Yellon - November 9, 2010
Jeff Baker rakes lefthanded pitching.
And he can play the corner outfield spots. I think the Cubs can use their money more wisely.
elgato - November 9, 2010
Francoeur is a much better OF than Baker.
But, Baker can indeed hit. If only the Cubs would use him the right way.
Al Yellon - November 9, 2010
Francoeur is better defensively.
But Baker is more versatile. And we’re talking about a bench spot. Versatility is important.
Anyway, is Francouer’s defense so valuable?
elgato - November 9, 2010
Maybe.
Because then maybe you don’t need a defensive replacement outfielder in addition to him.
Al Yellon - November 9, 2010
Ha. If you'll recall ...
this is why I was so strident in my belief that Baker should get time in the OF last spring. Versatility helps.
If it comes down to Baker (versatile, cheap) and Francouer (better outfielder, more expensive) I’d go with Baker.
elgato - November 9, 2010
Depends on how much Francoeur would cost.
Al Yellon - November 9, 2010
How much would you be willing to pay Francouer?
elgato - November 9, 2010
Maybe $4m.
That’d be a little less than the previous couple of years. He’s really not a fulltime player any more.
Al Yellon - November 9, 2010
Wow. That blows me away.
I don’t know if I’d give Francouer more than $1 million.
elgato - November 9, 2010
If that's all he'll get, he may go the way of Jermaine Dye.
Al Yellon - November 9, 2010
If we were talking about this two years ago
I’d be willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, and say that Francoeur has a shot to turn his career around. But he has been exactly average overall for three straight years, and terrible offensively for three straight years. Francoeur is, at best, the perfect example of a replacement player. Wise teams should not spend $4M on a replacement player (10x the league minimum).
Bradsbeard - November 9, 2010
Baker pees sitting down.
Edelweiss - November 9, 2010
Triple slash line comparisons against lefties
Francouer’s career line v. lefties: .299/.343/.481 with 34 HR in 982 PAs (.346 wOBA)
Xavier Nady’s career line v. lefties: .296/.367/.451 with 23 HR in 820 PAs (.356 wOBA)
Jeff Baker’s career line v. lefties: .308/.363/.545 with 19 HR in 438 PAs (.387 wOBA)
Probably a small sample size issue, but I’d say the only one of these that rakes LH pitching is Baker, while Nady would still be better than Francouer.
Bradsbeard - November 9, 2010
I would take Nady back
in a heartbeat…
hansman1982 - November 9, 2010
Fangraphs disagrees on his value as a platoon player
Wreckard - November 9, 2010
But if you platoon him...
… doesn’t that get rid of the “overall lousiness” and play to his strength?
Al Yellon - November 9, 2010
Fangraphs doesn't seem to think so.
elgato - November 9, 2010
Wreckard and others can address this better than I can
as I’ve never deeply immersed myself in sabrmetrics. I think the point the fangraphs article was making is that, as compared to the rest of the league, his ability against lefties is only marginally better, and considering most platoons would give lefties more opportunities to hit, along with the fact that his defensive skills are a bit overstated (above average, but hardly top shelf), his overall value seems to be quite … miniscule, to put it nicely.
As a side point, if Fukudome is around and in RF as a part of a platoon, which was the point in your initial post above (not sure where this mock situation puts Colvin), then the need for a his platoon partner to be strong defensively is minimal. The Cubs will more than likely carry a CF backup, and Byrd likely doesn’t get subbed out for purely defensive reasons (if the Cf backup is that superb defensively, then Byrd might get moved to a corner for defensive purposes). Let’s pretend, for discussion purposes, that the CF backup is Fuld. For an end-game defensive situation in this hypothetical, and assuming the platoon partner is starting for Kosuke, you would simply go with Kosuke/Fuld to replace platoon/Soriano. After all, if you valued a defensive situation that highly, youd’ more than likely shift in Kosuke even if the platoon partner was a Francoeur like player.
toonsterwu - November 9, 2010
Right - over the course of a platoon, those platoon splits will regress
See here:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/estimating-hitter-platoon-skill/
It’s an easy fallacy to engage in, just sizing up someone’s splits and thinking those will predict platoon performance. I’m guilty of it as much as anyone, that article above set me straight.
Wreckard - November 9, 2010
yeah
no
jesus christos - November 9, 2010
We currently are loaded in the OF
Soriano, Byrd, Fukudome, and Colvin. Guyer and Jackson are waiting in the wings. Why in the world would we spend $6M+/- for Francoeur? Our dollars to spend are very limited and it would take extreme good fortune to make the playoffs. Let’s just plan on going younger with our prospects next year and not block them with castoffs from other teams.
tharr - November 9, 2010
this is the situation i spent much of the season detailing
and this is why its so tough to compete in 2011 for a world series.
DartmouthCubsFan - November 9, 2010
without backloading more 2011 FA signings
and potentially repeating the cycle that left us here (only with an older roster to start)
DartmouthCubsFan - November 9, 2010
Huh.
And yet, the two teams in the 2010 World Series ranked 9th and 26th in payroll.
Al Yellon - November 9, 2010
those two teams...
didn’t win 75 games the year before with a roster filled with guys past their prime
DartmouthCubsFan - November 9, 2010
And that is a big problem
the Cubs are an old team.
rlpete - November 9, 2010
It all depends on what type of Arb raises Soto/Gorz/Marmol/Marshall will get
If you buy into Al’s numbers, it sounds dire. If the arb raises are less (more likely), then there is more money to spend.
Without knowing what payroll will be or what the cost of those four players will be, its difficult to accurately assess what type of moves Hendry can make.
magicblue - November 9, 2010
you're talking a couple million here or there
its not going to make a gigantic difference one way or the other
the only way to fit in big time acquisitions into the budget for this year (assuming its coming down a little as Ricketts indicated) is to backload them
DartmouthCubsFan - November 9, 2010
It could be the difference between having
$14.675M to spend (Al’s numbers) versus having closer to $20M. That’s a nice chunk of change, which gives the team more money to address the roster and could be used to sign an FA like KWood for example (not that I’m advocating using money on Woody).
Hendry’s going to have to be very creative this offseason if he wants to be a contender (as he has stated). This will be the offseason that makes or breaks him and his staff, IMO.
magicblue - November 9, 2010
I should have added that the extra money saved could be used
to improve the quality of the remaining 7 players on the 25-man roster in Al’s scenario
magicblue - November 9, 2010
You could conceivably backload because...
… so many dollars are coming off the books after 2011. Thus you could fit in some larger deals for 2012 and beyond.
Al Yellon - November 9, 2010
A la 2006?
Blithely backloading isn’t the answer to our problems.
Flatley - November 9, 2010
in a case like this
where we have salary flexability next year and it is done wisely (which Tom should be able to help Jim with) it can be a very effective tool. think of backloading a contract like an ARM – if you do it at the right time and are careful it can be a great idea (see when interest rates are NOT at historic lows) do it in 2005-2007 and you are going to get your ass bit
hansman1982 - November 9, 2010
Why are smaller raises for those guys "more likely"?
elgato - November 9, 2010
Because
Soto hasn’t had a consistent record of health and success to warrant a $5M pay raise and Marmol’s lack of control (HBP and BB) could be used against him in an arb hearing + 2010 was his 1st season in the high-leverage closer position, whereas Papelbaum had a longer track record of success as a closer than Marmol
magicblue - November 9, 2010
I'm with you on Soto.
But not Marmol. He’ll get a big raise, despite his control issues.
elgato - November 9, 2010
For the same reasons why you don't judge pitching on their W-L ratio...
… so too are the reasons this analogy is poor.
Flatley - November 9, 2010
we just need to compete.
If we are in it and have needs come trade time next year, I would be shocked to see no moves made then. that could be the difference.
imacubman - November 9, 2010
I disagree with the arbitration raises for Soto and Marmol
Soto had one great and healthy year (2008), one terrible, injury plagued year (2009), and one great, injury plagued year (2010). How in the world does that translate in a raise from $0.5M to $5.5M?. There is no way Geo is going to get that type of raise. I’d say more like $3M tops. If he is healthy and awesome in 2011, he’ll make his $$$ in 2012 and beyond.
Regarding Marmol, I don’t see him getting $6.5M either, I’d say at most $5M for Marmol. Hendry should take this one to the Arb hearing. Marmol’s lack of control (HBP and BBs) relative to Papelbaum should reduce his arb raise.
Non-tendering Hill, Baker and replacing with Chirinos/Barney makes a ton of sense, IMO, that would save at most $1M.
Who really knows though. Hendry needs clarity with the salaries that the key arb eligible players of Soto/Marmol/Marshall/Gorz, I don’t see the Cubs making many moves until after Hendry figures out what the cost of these 4 players will be.
magicblue - November 9, 2010
Remember that...
…. arb raises are given more on service time than performance. I’d love to see lower arb raises than I wrote about; that would give much more flexibility.
Remember that Ryan Theriot is the only player who has ever taken the Cubs to an actual arb hearing (Z came close once). I’d think Hendry will lock up Soto, Marmol and Marshall long before arb hearings. (Gorzelanny, too.)
Al Yellon - November 9, 2010
On Marmol
Bottomline results, strikeouts and low BA will easily negate any possible negative from BB and HBP.
rlpete - November 9, 2010
Anybody think we're gonna be competing for a playoff spot in 2011?
::NOT THIS GUY::
dtpollitt - November 9, 2010
Im not betting in it
But I wouldnt be surprised if we did. Who thought at the start of last season that Tex, Cin, and SF would win thier divisions. SF maybe, others, not me.
imacubman - November 9, 2010
If we were in any other division, there would be almost no chance.
But the Central has been won by teams with fewer than 86 victories twice in the past five seasons. I don’t think I’d bet on a playoff appearance, but with the weak competition in our division, I wouldn’t rule it out.
elgato - November 9, 2010
Fair point.
dtpollitt - November 9, 2010
If we get a few "happy endings"
from Lady Luck we can contend – otherwise, no
hansman1982 - November 9, 2010
Sounds painful.
dtpollitt - November 9, 2010
Depends on if we can beat Pittsburgh and Houston heads up or not.
Easy Ed - November 9, 2010
I laughed, I cried.
dtpollitt - November 9, 2010
spending money for the sake of spending money
isn’t likely to be money spent wisely so i’m not sure how adding laroche, wood, and one of garland/vazquez would do much to improve the team in 2011 and/or beyond. it’s not that any of those guys are bad players but the dollars and years that will likely be required to sign them just don’t make sense.
circuitclout - November 9, 2010
to be fair (not saying those moves would be great, but just a defense of the moves if they are made)
the Cubs have to sign a first baseman. There simply isn’t anyone to turn to (okay, there is Micah Hoffpauir … ). and you sort of need to sign a veteran pen arm (if only to slot the young pen arms in more suitable roles … but my hope is that signing a veteran pen arm frees up Cashner for rotation duty in Iowa, where he can get some more work in. It seems like a bit of SNTS when it comes to our young arms – a lot of love for Archer, and justifiably so, but people seem to be forgetting that Cashner had people buzzing about his starting potential early in the year and that his overall potential is probably higher than Archer’s (although that’s debatable I guess).) As for signing one more starter, there’s two possible benefits. there’s the small end benefit, which would be something along the lines of making sure the young pen arms in middle relief aren’t overburdened (the idea being that you sign an innings eating guy). The bigger end benefit might be that guys like Archer, Carpenter, McNutt, J. Jax, and maybe Cashner are allowed to develop and given more time.
toonsterwu - November 9, 2010
I just don't see the Cubs putting Cashner back at Iowa to let him start.
Maybe it is just a gut feeling I have. Not unless they sign two veteran relief guys b/c otherwise he is really needed too badly in the pen.
I do like the idea of Carpenter going to the pen given how he has increased his FB velo plus with his injury history the idea of limiting his pitch counts would be good. Makes you wonder if the Cubs had done the same with Guzman earlier in his career when he kept getting hurt if he would have held up better. Pure speculation though…
CA Cub Fan - November 9, 2010
re:
I have a feeling that the Cubs will keep Cashner in the pen as well, which would be one of the most disappointing things that I can remember in recent memory. I know, some argue that they can always shift Cashner in the future, but it becomes significantly harder if he’s in the pen another year for 2 reasons – building up innings and working on his secondary pitches. It seems like a lot of people have forgotten that Cashner was addressing every single concern people had about him as a starter early in the year – working deep and carrying stuff deep into games, showing a plus slider, showing a good change. He was also getting more efficient.
As for the pen … if you sign one guy, I think you are alright and afforded the flexibility to shift Cashner. Not saying they will, but if you sign one, that means that you have Marmol, Marshall, FA to fill out 3 slots in a 7 man pen. Grabow, due to his contract, will probably be around, and Russell probably should be as well (as a middle relief LOOGY). That leaves 2 spots, a 6th/7th inning righty and maybe a long relief type, neither of which really demands either another FA signing or using Cashner in those roles (not saying they can’t use them in those roles).
As for Carpenter, he was hitting mid-90’s as a starter. His future may be in the pen, but I hope the Cubs don’t move him just yet. Here’s a guy who will have around 150 innings by the end of the calendar year. He has a good starter’s arsenal, good sink on his fastball. I’d wait and see if he can stick as a starter first. Moving Jay Jackson to the pen sooner makes a bit more sense than moving Carpenter now (I’d keep both of those guys in the rotation for now personally).
toonsterwu - November 9, 2010
I think Cashner's future will depend on how well the Cubs play.
If the Cubs somehow put together a strong couple of months to start the year, I think Cashner’s immediate future as a starter could be sacrificed to help the Cubs make a run. And I wouldn’t necessarily have a problem with that.
If the Cubs start poorly, it will be due in part to poor starting pitching, and I could see the Cubs planning on having a few openings in the rotation in 2012. I hope the Cubs realize that Cashner would be more valuable building arm strength and adding pitches in Des Moines than he would be as a seventh-inning guy on a fourth-place team.
The worst case scenario is a mediocre team that thinks it’s just one 10-game stretch from contention. In that scenario, Cashner is kept on as a reliever and the Cubs go nowhere.
elgato - November 9, 2010
But the Cubs already have six options for next year's rotation.
True, I’m assuming that Coleman is an option, but I wouldn’t be opposed to making him the No. 5.
I understand that an innings eater would help the pen … but I think there are bigger fish to fry. And I don’t really think the Cubs have the roster flexibility to jam in one more starter — unless Wells or Gorzo gets traded.
elgato - November 9, 2010
i have an odd feeling
even though I hope it doesn’t happen (unless as noted above, it’s part of a big deal) that the cubs may ponder shopping shopping Randy Wells this offseason.
toonsterwu - November 9, 2010
If we had more faith in the team's management ...
we might be OK with trading Wells. I imagine when Boston or Oakland trades a guy like that, the team’s fans figures Epstein or Beane know what they’re doing — maybe that they’re selling high.
I don’t think any of us have that faith in Hendry. He’s been better with trades than he has with free agents, but I think we’re all at the point where we don’t give Hendry much benefit of the doubt.
elgato - November 9, 2010
I'm not too bothered by Hendry's trade history
to be concerned about what he nets in a trade for Wells (if he does ponder it). At least, not moreso than most GM’s (I’ve said before that I don’t find Hendry to be a great GM, nor do I find him to be a bad GM, his trade history is actually relatively solid, . I am mildly wondering if they are pondering to add an innings eating starter as a guy to replace Wells potentially, which makes little sense considering Wells worked near 200 innings. Would sort of defeat my argument above that they are trying to add innings to the rotation, but the thought has crossed my mind.
toonsterwu - November 9, 2010
Hendry's best trades occurred when he fleeced cash-strapped teams.
He should still get credit for those and, if Wells is packaged in a Gonzalez deal, I’d be fine with that (I think you would be, too, toons). And if there’s a comparable deal out there with a valuable player who’s not quite Gonzalez — i.e. Wells is 2010-11’s version of Choi — well, I’d be OK with that, too.
But I have little faith left in Hendry. I’d be worried that any Wells deal would work out like the Pierre trade and not the D-Lee trade. I would, of course, love to be proved wrong in that scenario.
elgato - November 9, 2010
Hendry's Trade History
This is the link to the old trade history profile down by MLBTR excel file. Not sure if a new one has been made.
Trades not on there:
(what we got/what we gave up)
2008
Rich Harden and Chad Gaudin for Gallagher/Murton/Donaldson/Patterson
Kevin Gregg for Jose Ceda
Chris Archer, John Gaub, Jeff Stevens for Mark DeRosa
2009
Luis Vizcaino for Jason Marquis
Garrett Olson and Henry Williamson for Felix Pie
Cash for Rich Hill
Richie Robnett and Justin Sellers for Michael Wuertz
Jeff Baker for Al Alburquerque
John Grabow and Tom Gorzelanny for Kevin Hart, Jose Ascanio, and Josh Harrison
Scott Maine and Ryne White for Aaron Heilman
Jeff Gray, Matt Spencer, and Ronny Morla for Jake Fox and Aaron Miles
Carlos Silva for Milton Bradley
2010
PTBN/Cash for Andres Blanco
Blake DeWitt, Brett Wallach, Kyle Smit for Ted Lilly and Ryan Theriot
Evan Crawford for Mike Fontenot
Robinson Lopez, Ty’Relle Harris, and Jeff Lorick for Derrek Lee
I have to step away for awhile but I don’t see enough in Hendry’s trade history to be troubled by the trading. Now, if you want to combine that with other moves that resulted from the trades, fair game. But the trade history isn’t that bad. It’s not great, but the trade history alone isn’t bad. The last trade I had a significant issue with was the Wuertz deal, but if Lou really lost faith in Wuertz, I can understand it (but don’t like it).
toonsterwu - November 9, 2010
forgot the Heilman/Olson for Cedeno trade
I mean, in the last three years, the only trades I didn’t like
a) Wuertz deal
b) Gregg deal
c) Heilman from Seattle deal (understood it, but didn’t like it)
There were trades that I was ambivalent on. The Pie and Hill trades weren’t bothersome to me from the extent of the trade history, but rather as a result of the disappointing development of both.
toonsterwu - November 9, 2010
Hendry's recent results are mixed.
The 2010 trades are hard to gauge. Many of the 2009 trades were cleanup moves prompted by previous decisions that were disasters. Should Hendry get credit for moving Bradley? I suppose. But he should get far more flack for signing the deal in the first place.
The Harden deal was good, and the Gorzo/Grabow trade was good. Certainly, the DeRosa trade will pay some dividends, but it sure messed some things up in 2009 (I’m aware of the qualifiers).
I’d say that aside from Harden, Hendry hasn’t pulled off a really good trade in a few years, though some of the deals for minor leaguers could pan out.
elgato - November 9, 2010
fair enough
as noted, I think it’s fair game to critique him on what happens as a result of some of these trades, or whether or not some of these trades happened as a result of something else. That much is fair game.
While he hasn’t pulled off a good trade in a few years, I think it’s also fair to say that he hasn’t really made a tremendously horrible/bad trade. Even the trades I didn’t like were understandable. If they really thought Ceda’s value was at a peak and that his bad body would hamper him, then okay. Cedeno had run his course here and was considered to be a bad student/worker, and Olson was a soft-tossing lefty that had struggled. Wuertz is bothersome, but that offseason, IIRC, all the reports were that Lou had lost faith in him, and the one thing about pen arms is, your manager has to be able to trust you.
I’m looking over that trade history thing in depth … and honestly, the last bad trade might be the oft-mentioned Pierre trade. I understood the intent of it, but it was just a bad trade that seemed to be the result of Hendry getting left at the altar by Furcal.
I guess my point is this – I’m not too worried about Hendry getting swindled in a trade. If I’m concerned about a Wells move, it would be related to the intent behind the move moreso than the actual move in of itself.
This lends me a to a total side point – there are times when I wonder if Hendry might be a GM better suited for a small-market team. They do a good job of scouting the low minors to find gems, and rarely does he miss horrendously in a trade. Sort of makes me think of Larry Beinfest at times (with the obvious note being that the Marlins drafting and development record has been better).
toonsterwu - November 9, 2010
bleh I obviously meant Heilman for olson and Cedeno
toonsterwu - November 9, 2010
I did not know
until reading Bruce Miles blog today that Randy Wells was considered high maintenance.
Maybe that might help explain why so people are suggesting that Wells doesn’t have a lock on a rotation spot. Dunno. Found it interesting that Bruce’s blog brought up Wells today, though.
toonsterwu - November 9, 2010
even if you assume
that you can get a 1B, right handed setup man and SP on a one year deal i’m not sure how you end up any better off having spent the $10 million or so rather than simply finding a cheap stopgap option at 1B, inserting cashner into the rotation now, and finally seeing what you have in samardzija.
circuitclout - November 9, 2010
Not him again...
I think that question has been answered over and over…we got nothing with him.
Easy Ed - November 9, 2010
81- 2/3 big league innings
over three years doesn’t answer the question. samardzija is young, throws hard and is under team control for quite a while yet. its far too early to give up on him.
circuitclout - November 9, 2010
really?
how about lacks command? lacks any type of solid sceondary offering? is eminantly hittable? and comes from Notre Dame? (Oh sorry, that was my inner monologue speaking on the last point)
Samardzija is nothing more than middle relief fodder for a 5th place team or a AAA veteran. He has been given the ball plenty to see what he has, or should I say, lacks.
socalbob - November 9, 2010
the cubs
are a fifth place team and are in need of middle relief fodder so sounds like a perfect match.
circuitclout - November 9, 2010
nope
he is behind quite a few guys who are middle relievers for this spectacular 5th place team. He should go pitch for KC or BAL.
socalbob - November 9, 2010
it's a sunk cost
even if he goes and pitches for KC or BAL he’s still going to get paid by CHC.
circuitclout - November 9, 2010
I meant go pitch
via a trade. Regardless, there is not a lot of hope for him. We have way too many “sunk costs” on this payroll.
socalbob - November 9, 2010
NTC
so might as well let him pitch.
circuitclout - November 9, 2010
yep
in Iowa
socalbob - November 9, 2010
It's not such a mess
Consider this team if they went out and signed Wood and Putz right now. Marmol, Marshall, Wood, Putz and Cashner in the pen. That’s lights out. Hopefully you reverse that ridiculous record in one-run games.
you could still back-fill 1st base with Overbay or C. Pena and be close to the budget.
SouthWabashSoul - November 9, 2010
You also have 30 Million coming off the books after 2011
So if you wanted to you could sign for instance
Wood and Putz for 5-7 million total, and Adam Dunn for 4-48 ish. Just backload the 2011 portion of Dunn’s deal.
Wood,Putz and Dunn (for example) could be brought in for about 15 million in 2011 dollars.
aaronb - November 9, 2010
I don't see why you need BOTH Wood and Putz.
Just Kerry Wood, please. The Cubs already have Marmol, Marshall, Cashner and Grabow locked in to the 2011 bullpen. Add Wood, then you just need two others from among the kids. One of them is likely James Russell — the other, could come from spring training competition or someone else’s non-tender.
Al Yellon - November 9, 2010
Probably Casey Coleman.
And if Wood is too expensive, Putz is a good guy to look at.
elgato - November 9, 2010
well, I'm just looking at the roster
as it’s currently constructed, filled in Baker, Fuld, Castillo as back up’s and that left 2 RH relievers and a 1b. I think 2 8th inning set-up guys is overkill too but the odds one of them is injured, Marmol is inconsistent etc. Nothing wrong with having a killer bp.
SouthWabashSoul - November 9, 2010
I'm not advocating signing both guys
I’m just saying that you COULD if you chose to. SouthWabash above mentioned getting both guys.
I’d advocate gettting Dunn, a RHP reliever and trading for a Jeremy Guthrie type of cost controlled starter.
Dunn needs to be far and away the top priority. I can live with him being the only big addition.
Pitching can be brought in by the NRI, bounce back type of dice rolling.
Brandon Webb, Erik Bedard, Kevin Millwood etc.
aaronb - November 9, 2010
We have Caridad and Berg and Mateo!
Why all this talk about needing new pitchers?
TJ11 - November 10, 2010
I'd be ok with only Dunn
If the choice is Dunn only or LaRoche and a bullpen arm.
I’d like for us to at least attempt some kind of high upside restoration project to compete for a spot. An incentive laden type of deal to bridge the gap until the kids are ready.
Bedard
Rich Hill
Brandon Webb
Ben Sheets
Someone in that ilk of pitcher. Very low base with incentives that could be paid at the end of next year.
If the guy doesn’t pan out, we aren’t out much money. If the guy pans out, and helps the cubs make the playoffs GREAT.
If the guy pans out and the cubs are bad, you can deal guy at the trade deadline.
aaronb - November 10, 2010
Grunt grunt.
Backload bad. Backload put team in bad place. Backload for ok man put team in bad place. Team need better man than ok man. Team need good man. Good man come next year. Good man make team good. Ok man make team ok. Team need better than ok. Team need good.
Flatley - November 9, 2010
uh, grunt grunt - it worked in 2007 and 2008
Orval Overall - November 9, 2010
Whoops, my bad.
I must have forgotten how the Cubs won the World Series in those years. Could you please refresh my memory?
Flatley - November 9, 2010
backloading some contracts
is ok if you are not loading some contracts and front loading some contracts…it also would work if you were anticipating someone to increase in ability along with the contract.
Backloading is not always a bad thing
hansman1982 - November 9, 2010
Front loading never ever makes any sense.
Never.
A frontloaded contract will cost you more than a backloaded contract of the same value.
You’re looking at payroll as though it happens in a vacuum from year to year. Let’s say you have a team with a $100M payroll and a veteran in the last year of a backloaded contract getting $25M next year. Fans look at that and assume that if the team didn’t have that veteran, they could use that $25M for something else, when in reality their payroll would probably be less than $100M without that obligation.
Wreckard - November 9, 2010
From an accounting standpoint you are probably correct
Unfortunately in a yearly payroll POV, it does absolutely make sense. We aren’t trying to fit random accountant X into our PNL statements.
We are trying to fit a very select group of impossible to find specialists into a 25 man roster.
aaronb - November 9, 2010
I disagree.
1) It increases the cost of the contract
2) It assumes that teams are incapable of planning for next year’s expenses now because they can only deal with their operating costs from year to year, like a college kid living paycheck to paycheck.
Most telling however is that no one does it. I can’t think of any deals in the MLB that were front-loaded.
Wreckard - November 9, 2010
arod
is prime contract #1 that comes to mind, I am sure you can find lots of front-loaded contracts for older players who are most definately leaving their prime, Jeter will probably get a front-loaded contract due to his age…
hansman1982 - November 9, 2010
also
front loading makes sense if you believe that contracts will get super expensive within the term of the deal and you want to open up flexability down the road and have excess flexability now. In terms of investing dollars it does make the contract more expensive (you dont have the extra money to invest) but then again we arent talking about a vaccum here, we are talking about a real live business that has varying needs from year to year and may want to have flexability down the road.
hansman1982 - November 9, 2010
ARod's contract is prime contract #1 because it's a list of 1
It’s a very unusual contract for a multitude of reasons. Normally teams don’t front-load.
If you want flexibility in the later years at the cost of money now, why not backload the contract and invest the amount you would have front loaded now?
So if you have a contract where you’re thinking about paying $10M now, and $5M the next 3 years, invest $5M now, and pay $5M the first 3 years and $10M the last.
Your opportunity cost the first year is the same ($10M) but now the last year of the deal costs you less ($10M – the $5M you invested – whatever you made off the investment). You’re accomplishing the same thing you’re proposing, but it costs you less money.
Front loading only works as a way to increase the value of the contract to the player. It increases the cost of the overall deal to you.
Wreckard - November 9, 2010
I'm not advocating for front-loaded contracts
But part of the reason for backloading contracts is inflation, and one could argue that the US economy has been (and will continue to be) in a period of economic deflation.
So $1 today isn’t necessarily going to be worth more in 5 years, it might actually be worth less. Especially if the total debt and value of the US dollar continue to decrease.
You also seem to be assuming that all investments turn profit or at least accrue positive interest, which also isn’t really true in the current economic environment.
Back loading contracts is normally a good thing for teams, but not so much in a crappy economy……..
magicblue - November 9, 2010
I should add that I prefer contracts that escalate and then decline
If I was a GM an AGon 7year/$140million deal would look something like this: $16M, 22, 22, 22, 22, 20, 16 for his age 30-36 seasons.
So you’ll be paying him a little less for his age 35-36 seasons when his production is probably declining, while probably paying him less than he’ll be worth for his age 30 season.
magicblue - November 9, 2010
in a vaccum
you are 100% correct – I am sure there are more front-loaded contracts I just dont have the time nor the energy to look it up…I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this issue
hansman1982 - November 10, 2010
deflationary environment
would be an environment in which front-loading would make sense
DartmouthCubsFan - November 10, 2010
Yes it does
but who knows how long the deflationary economic climate will last. It could be over in 2012 or we might not see a sustained period of growth till 2015 or later.
I think front-loading contracts might work better for shorter term 2-3 year deals like Grabow and Byrd in this type of economy where debt burden and the value of the dollar will continue to decline…..
magicblue - November 10, 2010
Signing Bonuses to free agents are an example of front loading a contract
aaronb - November 9, 2010
Signing bonuses are also usually bonded and dispersed across the length of the deal
So they usually cost less than they’re worth. Like a backloaded contract/
Wreckard - November 9, 2010
One year deals
Frontloaded to the max.
BucknerKongCardenal - November 9, 2010
MLB contracts are guaranteed
Why on earth would signing bonuses be dispersed over the course of the deal?
aaronb - November 10, 2010
so a team can pay
$2 million a year for 5 years rather than a $10 million hit
hansman1982 - November 10, 2010
Actually the team has to bond the entire signing bonus up front
However, because it’s bonded, it costs less than it’s worth.
Wreckard - November 10, 2010
How much exactly is coming off the books next year?
I see more like 40 mil:
A-Ram 14.6
Fuku 14.5
Silva 6 (assuming half is from Mariners)
Samardija 3.5
Grabow 4.8
Total 43.4 mil
I think A-Ram is a team option so it may or may not come off.
Is that correct?
CA Cub Fan - November 9, 2010
That's basically right, though I think Aramis has a buyout.
elgato - November 9, 2010
Aramis and Samjay are the rubs there
I counted 30 in Grabow, Silva and Fuku, and the likely difference between Aramis’ 2010 salary and what it will cost to resign or replace him.
aaronb - November 9, 2010
What about Catcher?
I dont know if I would like to see Hill come back, but is Castillo ready to fill that role? Also, what about using Soto as a b/u 1B? Catchers usually are pretty good there because they are good at handling balls in the dirt.
imacubman - November 9, 2010
As a big-time proponent of versatile players ...
I think it would be a good idea to see if Soto could be a backup at first.
elgato - November 9, 2010
what about Victor Martinez?
He plays a better 1B than Dunn, Lh bat and can b/u soto or maybe even platoon the 2 positions with him. Just a thought
imacubman - November 10, 2010
V-Mart has been mentioned.
I don’t know that much about him. Maybe.
elgato - November 10, 2010
he's a switch hitter
and would make a nice addition at 1B—not a huge splash. And then they could let Koyie Hill retire and not pay any arb dollars to him. Maybe he and Soto can flip flop 20 or 30 games? I’d kick the tires.
socalbob - November 11, 2010
The Samardjiza and Grabow contracts really upset me.
mikegncb34 - November 9, 2010
I know this isn't a place to grouse about the past..
… and that’s not the intent of this post. But does anyone know how our organization overvalued Samardijza to the degree that it did?
It’s not an idle question, nor is it an invitation to vent. I’m just looking for facts (with a smattering of opinion).
Flatley - November 9, 2010
keep in mind
that they needed to offer a significant enough deal for him to turn down football, so he was going to get overpaid no matter what. There were some folks that had him as a first round talent that year, so that combination (potential and another sport as an alternative) led to the contract. It’s possible, as others have speculated upon, that they paid him more on account of the relationship between Maineri and Hendry, with Hendry feeling that he perhaps had some inside info.
A comparison can be made to Andrew Brackman, who got a monster deal MLB deal from the Yankees. Now, Brackman wasn’t as big a risk as Samardzija was to play another sport, but the comparison holds enough.
toonsterwu - November 9, 2010
Kind of a dumb risk to take given the other salary obligations at the time.
Shark hasn’t just been overpaid. He’s been overpaid while the Cubs have severely overpaid about six other guys.
elgato - November 9, 2010
fair enough
but without knowing the internal financial dynamics, i have a tough time critiquing the deal that much. Keep in mind that the Cubs didn’t have 2nd-4th round picks that year, and Colvin, IIRC, signed for around slot. So if they extra money to play with, and that money was specifically allocated for the draft/system, then it makes some sense to gamble on a guy you viewed as having high potential. More than anything, the issues with Samardzija doesn’t relate to when they got him, IMO, but more to how they developed him/pushed him.
toonsterwu - November 9, 2010
OK, but a no-trade?
elgato - November 9, 2010
that i don't like
but if that was the price of signing him … I wouldn’t be significantly bothered by it. Viewing things from hindsight always helps, but at the time, if you viewed the guy as an impact type of talent who still had untapped potential, and that’s what he wanted to sign … I can’t blame them for giving that. Don’t like it, but can understand it.
toonsterwu - November 9, 2010
I guess the no trade is sort of beside the point.
If he’s good, you don’t want to trade him. If he’s bad, with that salary, you won’t be able to trade him.
elgato - November 9, 2010
I believe the potential of Shark
had more to do with the fact he was from ND than his real upside. The Cubs were being shopped to buyers and Hendry had monopoly money to spend, particularly when the new owners has to assume the payments.
tharr - November 9, 2010
that's not really fair
that seems to suggest that ND was the sole reason he had upside. The reality was, with that live arm, along with his athleticism, a lot of folks loved Shark’s potential, but weren’t sure if he’d leave football. It simply wasn’t just the Cubs. I’m not saying the ND aspect didn’t help him net that deal, but I don’t think it’s fair to say that the ND aspect was the reason for his potential.
toonsterwu - November 9, 2010
Where did I say
that the sole reason he had upside? Please don’t twist my words. The elections are over.
tharr - November 9, 2010
I can see that from your statement
Slappy Smargodzilla is just a case of the cubs going overslot on a player….just saying
hansman1982 - November 10, 2010
sorry i meant to type main
not sure why i typed sole yesterday. i do disagree with your assertion that you posted, that ND was the main reason for his potential (which is what you wrote in the first line … that his potential had more to do with the fact that he was from ND than his real upside). I apologize for using sole there, not sure why I did, but that was 24 hours ago. The short of it is, had teams known he would leave football, he probably would’ve gone much higher.
toonsterwu - November 10, 2010
Since we can't climb inside
Hendry’s mind, let’s call it a draw. It’s just that Hendry was throwing around money like crazy that year. He needed a PR win to quiet down the Cubs fans and ND and Samardzija was a popular ND player that was well known.
Take a look at his college numbers, They certainly don’t speak “give him a ton of money and accelerate his free agency time and add a no trade clause”.
tharr - November 11, 2010
The virtues of backloading
I know this is not meant to be a post about the merits of the existing contracts, so trust me I am tying this into 2011 payroll flexibility.
First, am I right the following come off the books after next year?
Fukudome ($14.5 M)
Ramirez ($14.6 M)
Silva ($7 M after deducting Seattle’s share)
Shark ($3.5 M)
Grabow ($4.8 M)
That’s a lot of money ($44.4M) tied up in 5 players, particularly since only one of them (Ramirez) is likely to start next year. While some of the commenters on here are right that this is the unfortunate consequence of backloading deals – part and parcel with the fortunate results achieved in 07/08 when some of these deals were new – their expiration after next year actually gives the Cubs more payroll flexibility than it would appear.
For a one year player, I agree the correct analysis is to see how a player’s anticipated 2011 salary will fit into the projected $135M budget. But the virtue of backloading is that the team can sign players to longer contracts (think Marmol, Soto, maybe Colvin, maybe Free Agents) where the 2010 number is small relative to the 2011 number. The reason they can do that is that with $44M coming off the books next year, there’s plenty of space to sign those players to long term deals, just so long as only a modest share of the money comes in the current year.
Now you can’t take that to extremes. (I doubt Cliff Lee would accept $5 M this year and $40M next year). But it does mean that for some of the players described above, you can probably get them on the 2010 books for less than Al is projecting, and do so without crippling the team long term as long as the overall numbers are sane, e.g., a four year deal for Marmol could easily have a $2M salary next year jumping to $8M when we have more salary space.
The point is, backloading itself is not a problem or vice any more than buying a home on credit is a vice. The problem comes about when you do too much of it, and wind up in a year where you lack flexibility to sign the guys you need. The Cubs aren’t necessarily in that position yet.
Orval Overall - November 9, 2010
sorry: "where the 2011 number is small relative to the 2012 number"; and "get them on the 2011 books...
Still haven’t come to grips with what year it is.
Orval Overall - November 9, 2010
I believe Ramirez has a buyout after 2011.
That isn’t a huge amount of $, though.
Al Yellon - November 9, 2010
2012 is a club option
for 16 mil, or a 2 mil buyout. Barring a stunner, that buyout will likely happen.
toonsterwu - November 9, 2010
Thanks for the correction
But the point still stands. A tight payroll in 2011 followed by a 2012 payroll with $42M in additional uncommitted space (on top of this years $30M+ and any payroll growth) creates flexibility for the coming year as well.
Orval Overall - November 9, 2010
I really don't disagree with that
that the organization should, with proper planning, backload the contracts. Wreckard makes the same point up higher in the thread.
I also agree that the Cubs should try to buyout the arb eligible years of guys like Marmol and Soto, but at this point, I’m not sure that I’m expecting it (here’s hoping I’m wrong). Even if you only, say, go with 2-3 year deals for both guys, that creates a lot more flexibility this year, as you note. It’s the smart move to make … but I just get the feeling that I shouldn’t be anticipating that. Furthermore, the benefit of such a move would be to potentially bring down the potential costs of those two in some respects (if both have strong 2011 years, their arb numbers could go quite high).
toonsterwu - November 9, 2010
If Ramirez has a monster year
A team in contention that needs a 3B could trade for him. The 16 mil vests, but it could be deemed by a team with deep pockets or a smaller market team with money to spend that has trouble signing big FA’s (like the A’s) as a 1 year FA signing. Almost like a frontloaded deal.
BucknerKongCardenal - November 9, 2010
I hadn't really pondered the idea of it vesting anymore
but yeah … it could vest. He’d need a really monstrous season to make that happen, but I should’ve noted that on the contract. My bad.
toonsterwu - November 9, 2010
If at the trade deadline, ARam is raking and the Cubs are out of contention
I wouldn’t be surprised one bit if ARam would wave the clause in his contract which states that his 2012 contract becomes guaranteed if he is traded. So its not 100% that the team that trades for ARam will have to pick up his 2012 contract. No team will do that for the oft-injured, in decline ARam
Oswalt did exactly this before he was traded to the Phillies.
magicblue - November 10, 2010
A quick 2012 look
Alfonso Soriano, $19,000,000
Carlos Zambrano, $18,875,000
Ryan Dempster, $14,500,000
Marlon Byrd, $5,500,000
Jeff Samardzija, $3,500,000
Carlos Marmol $7,000,000
Geo Soto $6,500,000
Sean Marshall $3,000,000
I made some assumptions about Soto, Marmol, and Marshall. Give or take a few mil on them.
So far we have about 77 million. We’ll go ahead and call it 80-85. I’m not sure about the backloaded parts of deals, arbitration, etc. Assuming we don’t sign anyone to a multiple year contract, that gives us a lot of throwing around money for a free agent or two. Colvin will be back in the OF and we get a big name 1B if we haven’t traded for Gonzalez already. Could be room for a front line starter as well if Archer and McNutt aren’t ready yet. Hopefully Brett Jackson and Vitters are ready by then. Certainly Jackson. Vitters might be another year or two away. 2012 is our year. We with the WS right before the apocalypse.
Musicdude10 - November 9, 2010
We win the world series
which causes the apocolypse!
CubFan90 - November 10, 2010
May have to consult a few mayans on that
But it sounds good to me
Musicdude10 - November 10, 2010
i hope you are right
I’m betting more on,say, 2014, with 2012/2013 as playoff push years. FA markets are steadily getting leaner, as teams are better at locking down young talent. I’d love to be wrong and celebrate a title in 2012, though.
toonsterwu - November 10, 2010
RE: Dunn
Backload that baby and geterdone Jimbo
El Borto - November 9, 2010
Any team that gives Dunn more than three guaranteed years will regret it.
elgato - November 9, 2010
And every
JB 23 - November 9, 2010 via mobile
And every team knows that...
….but that is what market will bear for a aging one dimensional player.
JB 23 - November 9, 2010 via mobile
Like Soriano?
TJ11 - November 10, 2010
Depends on how dominant that one dimension is?
And how many productive 5 tool First Baseman are there? Seems like most of this negative Dunn talk is because he was a bad defensive outfielder.
Dunn’s outfield defense isn’t any more relevant than Neifi Perez being a poor brain surgeon at this point.
aaronb - November 10, 2010
Dunn's defense at first is reportedly pretty bad.
The reputation doesn’t stem only from his outfield butchery.
elgato - November 10, 2010
If you want a Free Agent, prepare for a 30-something
I know in the discussion of Adam Dunn that there have been usually been two points of criticism on Dunn – He’ll be 31, and he has old baseball skills (high HRs, High Ks) that would appear to breakdown faster.
While the later is disputable, the former is not (although I’d never argue with my wife on this). But the problem is, what free agents can you get as a 20-smething?
From an MLB Fanhouse top 50 list, I count only 3 players on that list who are not 30 or older today – Carl Crawford (29), Jorge De LaRosa (29), and Jhonny Peralta (28).
More platers enter MLB at an older age, delaying their first crack a free agency. Is 31 the new 28 for free agents?
RiskyBusiness - November 9, 2010
Looks like I did Phil Rogers’ research for him.
And although I was in the “trade Zambrano” camp when he had his meltdown, I think the Cubs should keep him now. Eating half the contract — Rogers’ suggestion — is a bad idea.
Al Yellon - November 9, 2010
agreed
now if some team wants to take on significantly more of the contract, then I’d take that opportunity, but eating half, or somewhere around there, means that the Cubs have to go out and find another starter, and they simply have too many other areas of concerns (leaving aside the fact that even with Z, they could use a TOR arm right now anyways).
toonsterwu - November 9, 2010
You and Paul Sullivan
Whose column I read this morning on the train into work.
The most important part of this was Quade saying “I get it” 3 times in the article. I’ll start printing various t-shirts now.
RiskyBusiness - November 9, 2010
Rogers is just bad.
He actually mentioned Marshall as a rotation candidate. What a joke.
elgato - November 9, 2010
it's not a terrible idea
you’re paying grabow setup man money and have russell/maine/gaub to choose from as a second lefty out of the pen.
circuitclout - November 9, 2010
The Cubs have too many back-end starters and not enough good setup men.
Just because Grabow is making the money doesn’t mean he can do the job — or that he can do the job better than Marshall.
elgato - November 9, 2010
Kerry Wood.
Al Yellon - November 9, 2010
I'm fine with that.
Marmol, Wood, Marshall as the back-end of the pen sounds pretty good to me.
elgato - November 9, 2010
ok
so you get wood and you have $15 million or so invested in the back end of your bullpen, but you’re not any closer to having a team that can win a pennant. i thought the point was to spend money wisely?
circuitclout - November 9, 2010
How do you get to $15 million at the back end of the bullpen?
Wood would need to make like $8 million to get to that point. I’ve said for quite a while that I’m only interested in Kerry at the right price, and $8 million is too much, IMO.
elgato - November 9, 2010
i used the addition method
marmol at approx $6 million. (per al’s guess)
marshal at approx $2.5 mil (per al’s guess)
grabow at $4.8 mil (per cot’s)
that’s $13.3 million before you add wood.
circuitclout - November 9, 2010
There's no need to get snippy.
I thought you were simply referring to Marmol, Marshall and Wood. I didn’t know you were counting Grabow.
I deeply apologize for my confusion.
elgato - November 9, 2010
there's no need to accuse me of being snippy
when all i did was answer the question you asked.
circuitclout - November 9, 2010
Uh-huh.
elgato - November 9, 2010
I can mildly defend the Marshall idea if
and this is a big if … if you believe that Marshall’s velocity that he found in the pen last year can carry as starter, then it is definitely worth it to ponder him. One thing that’s been … interesting … in discussing the pen situation is how we seem to have talked ourselves into this idea that we need two lights out setup men for our closer. How many organizations actually have that, two setup quality guys, and a lefty and righy to boot? It’s not the most important thing out there (although if you shift Marshall … that probably dooms Cashner to pen duty irregardless of what happens in FA).
Do I think it will actually happen? Nah, But the idea of pondering Marshall as a rotation candidate isn’t a bad idea if you believe that velocity can carry. After all, that would likely leave three guys in Gorzelanny/Grabow/Russell for the lefty pen jobs, along with Maine and perhaps a guy like Luke Sommer in the upper minors.
The thing with Rogers take that I have a big issue with is the idea that somehow Randy Wells rotation spot is at risk. It isn’t just Rogers though – it seems like everywhere I read something on the 2011 Cubs, Wells status in the rotation is at risk (okay a bit over the top there, but just making a point). At the end of the day, if he’s not traded, Wells should be safely in the rotation. He’s an excellent 5th starter, a solid 4th starter for most organizations, and a decent number 3. Unless there’s some underlying concerns that no one knows about publically, I just don’t see why he should be at risk.
toonsterwu - November 9, 2010
Agreed on Wells.
I don’t think Marshall will be better as a back-end starter than Gorzo or Wells. And I think Marshall is a better reliever than both of them.
In other words, Marshall has skills as a reliever that are hard to find on this team. I don’t think the same can be said about his skills as a starter.
elgato - November 9, 2010
Right.
And, Marshall said near the end of the season that he was comfortable in the role and enjoying it. That counts, too.
Al Yellon - November 9, 2010
if it aint broke...
hansman1982 - November 9, 2010
Phil has written a lot of drivel in his time.
And this is one of the weakest. That “article” was nonsensically awful.
Re-read his math on starting pitchers. It will blow your mind.
fsuapollo - November 9, 2010
Agreed.
I think some of the MSM folks in Chicago get unfairly maligned around here. The Bruces are quite good, and I think Gordo writes well and Sullivan is fine.
But I’m amazed Phil Rogers has a job. He never breaks stories and his speculation is often baseless.
elgato - November 9, 2010
And, as I noted...
… that article looked suspiciously like this one.
Al Yellon - November 9, 2010
Yeah. That was odd.
elgato - November 9, 2010
Just curious
why did you include a prorated portion of the player’s signing bonus in this year’s payroll? Is that convention in the MLB?
In the NFL, they include a prorated portion of the SB in the salary cap calculation, but the money is all paid up front. So for budget purposes, the signing bonus would be included in the budget for the year the player was signed, not the life of the contract.
If it’s a signing bonus, I’d imagine the those players were paid that money up front, and then, imo, those numbers shouldn’t be spread over the life of the contract for budgeting purposes. But I could be missing something.
tomas21 - November 9, 2010
I believe that is convention, yes.
The Cot’s spreadsheet I took the numbers from did it that way, and the other numbers I have seen quoted seem to do it the same way.
Al Yellon - November 9, 2010
Question for everybody:
What should we expect from Blake DeWitt next season? At minimum, he’s a cheap, lefty bat with a little versatility (he can play second and third). What are the chances that he’s more than that?
elgato - November 9, 2010
I would say not much.
He’s fine in the short-term, but 2B should definitely be an upgrade spot for the following season. Barring the breakout the Dodgers finally gave up on in order to acquire The Riot, that is.
fsuapollo - November 9, 2010
Yeah. I wonder if that breakout will ever happen ...
elgato - November 9, 2010
DeWitt is only 25.
He still has upside, in my opinion. One more year of this and then I’d say no, but I’m willing to take the chance on that.
Al Yellon - November 9, 2010
A breakout year from DeWitt might really change the math for the Cubs next year.
But the team probably shouldn’t count on anything.
elgato - November 9, 2010
my bigger issue with DeWitt on the roster
is that he doesn’t really … well … fill any offensive role, and he’s a poor defensive 2nd baseman. I am specifically referencing offensive role here, so we can utilize/ponder a breakout. First off, I am assuming that the rumors/spec is true and that Tyler will be given every chance to run with it in RF as a regular, and that whatever first baseman is signed, the intent will be for that player to offer middle-bottom of the order offense (specifically, not top of the order, although Nick Johnson would be fine).
As such, even if DeWitt breaks out … he becomes … what? A decent number 2 hitter? He’s really not a leadoff hitter in any semi-ideal situation. If you have Colvin and the first baseman in the 3-6 slots in the lineup, even if DeWitt breaks out power wise, he probably won’t be good enough to, at least, initially, force those two down. Thus, a best case scenario is that he’s a decent number 2 hitter/bleh leadoff option (and if he’s in the 2 hole, that puts the aggressive Castro in the leadoff role, which I really don’t love. I like Castro in the 2 hole a lot more than leading off).
There’s an equally high chance that he won’t breakout, and he is what we see him to be, which is an end of the lineup type of guy. (I guess it’s possible to ponder a breakout as his “hit tool” improving drastically to make him … well, LeMahieu with a tiny bit more power (enough people question if LeMahieu’s ability to hit for average can carry to the bigs, though). That might be the one situation that makes him work for me for a one year/short term situation … but I’m not expecting that).
That said, there are enough other areas of concern for the club right now, and I’m not expecting much to be done at 2nd base outside of a minor signing perhaps.
toonsterwu - November 9, 2010
Leadoff is going to be an issue in 2011
I agree with you on preferring Castro as #2. Dewitt is not a leadoff hitter. The best of a bad situation is Fukudome and that means Colvin falls to 4th outfielder.
rlpete - November 9, 2010
Except that Kosuke doesn't hit well there, either.
If the team is looking toward the future, Colvin should get more at-bats than Kosuke — even if it means Castro or DeWitt leading off.
elgato - November 9, 2010
to be fair to Kosuke
I feel like Kosuke gets overly bashed by Cubs fans a bit, but even I don’t have the energy to defend him too much. That said, he actually hit quite well in the leadoff role in 2009, and he had a really low BABIP in the leadoff role this year, but still showed good discipline. If he’s here, and let’s say, Colvin is at first (just playing a hypothetical for now), I’d rather see Fukudome/Castro. Here’s where I get a bit “old school” in my thought process, and I think sabrmetrically inclined folks could probably tear this last part of my comment apart (at least, I think someone attempted to last time I posted a thought process like this, but I was too lazy to read the post but I assumed he was criticizing me on it), but I like Castro in the 2 spot in that situation (Kosuke in RF, and for now, colvin at 1st in this scenario) as it puts Castro ahead of our best hitter (not using the old protection theories, just focusing on the fact that putting good hitters next to each other is “protection”), and behind a guy who would, ideally, take pitches.
toonsterwu - November 9, 2010
Kfuk is a good and useful player
He gets bashed because Hendry overpaid him. Not really his fault though.
I’ll say that chances are good that Fukudome is more valuable to the 2011 Cubs than Tyler Colvin is.
aaronb - November 9, 2010
I'll bet you a lot of money that Colvin is more valuable -- assuming he gets enough playing time.
elgato - November 9, 2010
I wouldn't be surprised
either way.
Dealing Fukudome also deals one of the few guys on the team that gets on base at a high clip, one of the bigger problems for the club last year (granted, it’s somewhat surprising that their .320 team OBP was actually only … I think, 10th worst, and closer to middle of the pack than I had initially thought ). That said … it seems like it’s going to happen. The Cubs seem intent, at least according to spec/rumors, on letting Colvin play without any threat to his PT.
toonsterwu - November 9, 2010
Which makes sense if you're playing for 2011 and beyond.
Kosuke won’t be a Cub in 2012. Colvin probably will be.
elgato - November 9, 2010
I agree with this
As the roster stands now, Fukudome is still our best option for leadoff. Besides Soto, he’s our only above average OBP guy.
Bradsbeard - November 9, 2010
I probably do about 50 percent of the Kosuke bashing on BCB.
I find him to be a maddeningly frustrating player whose statistical pluses are outweighed by his streakiness, his need (perceived or otherwise) for a platoon partner and his ridiculous price tag. Most stat-head arguments for Kosuke — he’s improved each year he’s been in the league! — can be negated with an easy counter argument — he needs a lot of rest to maintain that playing level.
His defense is good, and of course it’s not his fault that Hendry overpaid him. But Kosuke had his shot as the leadoff guy in 2010, and giving him one more means less time for a player who legitimately could be big part of the Cubs future in Colvin.
I have said it before: When the Cubs trade Kosuke, I’ll happily drive the Fukudomes to the airport.
elgato - November 9, 2010
As noted
it’s hard for me to spend enough energy defending him, unlike say, Randy Wells. At the end of the day, you simply have to produce, and for one reason or another, he’s just gone through dry stretches. As you note above, there’s a gigantically higher chance that Colvin is a part of our future than Kosuke, and it behooves the Cubs to figure out what they have in Colvin, rather than playing out the string with Kosuke. I’m not yet sold that Colvin is a significant part of our future, but letting him play ahead of Kosuke is the right move. I’m not sure the Cubs should feel like Kosuke being around would threaten his PT, so I’d only move Kosuke if the savings were enough to help make a subsequent move.
toonsterwu - November 9, 2010
I understand.
Kosuke also angers me because I believe he’s the move that really wrecked the upward trajectory of the Cubs. Despite his strong start in 2008, I think the Cubs would have won the Central without him — and they certainly could have won it if they’d been able to invest $48 million on a better player.
Kosuke’s fade in the second half of 2008 prompted the Cubs to make some terrible decisions toward becoming more left-handed for 2009. Had Kosuke panned out, there would have been no real need to sign Bradley, to trade DeRosa, to sign Miles, to not re-sign Wood and to trade for Gregg.
Maybe it was fine to cut ties with Wood and DeRosa. But the net result of the guys they got to replace them AND to make up for Kosuke was a huge, huge negative and probably closed the window for the Lee-Ramirez-Soriano years.
Had the Cubs been forced to sign somebody like Nick Swisher — who was available in the 2007-08 offseason — history might have been very different. I’m not saying Swisher would have been an All-Star, but I doubt he would have prompted so many other disastrous moves for the simple fact that he wouldn’t have been so expensive.
Throw all of the Kosuke fallout with his maddening streakiness, his need for rest to stay effective, his (perceived or not) lack of ability to hit lefties and the fact that his biggest positive (OBP) doesn’t work at the top of the freaking order and I will be very happy when he’s played his last game as a Cub.
elgato - November 9, 2010
Throw IN ...
elgato - November 9, 2010
Well, that's right.
There’s very little chance that DeWitt isn’t the team’s opening day second baseman, unless he’s hurt. Barney will be the backup MI, and after signing a first baseman, a setup guy and a starter, I don’t see how the Cubs could afford someone like Orlando Hudson. Note that I’m not necessarily advocating for Hudson — just mentioning him as an available second baseman.
If DeWitt does exactly what he did last year, he’s a decent No. 7 or 8 hitter who hits left, plays passable defense and costs very little. And that’s fine, because the Cubs have bigger fish to fry this offseason.
elgato - November 9, 2010
+1
one of the better things you have said in all of your drivel…:)
hansman1982 - November 9, 2010
Did someone accuse me of spouting drivel, hans?
elgato - November 9, 2010
DeWitt is older physically than he is chronologiaclly. He was fully grown at 12, and had a beard at 14. He peaked at age 21, and is going only downhill. Late bloomers make better choices for the long term.
Edelweiss - November 9, 2010
at a certain point
a guy is who he is. There’s a chance that the sweet swing scouts saw may still develop some power, but as it relates to expectations, he’s basically a bigger (by about 15 pounds) Theriot for me, or a smaller LeMahieu. There’s a chance that power comes … but I’m just not expecting it, and he doesn’t offer enough elsewhere for me to like the idea of him starting too much. That said, with other areas of concern, 2nd base is a backburner issue this offseason (although Bruce Miles has noted that the Cubs aren’t committed to him starting, with different perspectives in the organization).
toonsterwu - November 9, 2010
One of the most frustrating thing with the Cubs over the past two years ...
is the team’s inability to make big changes. The team not only has a lot of overpaid veterans, it simply has a lot of guys taking roster spots. The team can tinker (and tinker effectively) by signing guys like Marlon Byrd. But it would kinda nice to really shake things up, make a few trades and change the complexion of a team comprised of a lot of players who are well past their primes.
elgato - November 9, 2010
I'd be fine with that
We’ve been at the point for a couple years now where the idea of ripping things apart feels like a nice move to make. Of course, some of those contracts are simply hard to move. Furthermore, the net return on some of the moves might not be enough to speed up a rebuilding process.
I’ve been fine for 2 years running now with the idea of tearing things up, but I’ve also been fine with the idea of letting things play itself out. The system wasn’t in the position
toonsterwu - November 9, 2010
The problem with Garland
is that if you think he’s good enough to improve your pitching staff then your pitching staff isn’t good enough to contend anyway. He is what he is, and average pitcher who’s durable. He’s not a TOR, definitely not an ace. Why spend $7-9 million bucks a year for a couple years for a guy who’s only going to help lower your draft position by a spot or three and put a dent in your payroll? We don’t need Garland, him and his type aren’t good enough to make a difference, only use up resources that could be better spent elsewhere.
pageian - November 9, 2010
Agreed and rec'd
We have guys in our system or hell even Silva who do just as good of a job
Musicdude10 - November 9, 2010
Except Garland pitches every 5th day
you are never sure with Silva. The Cubs don’t need Garland next year but he has been a workhorse. I don’t think Silva can match that.
rlpete - November 9, 2010
Absolutely.
Garland might not do a better job than Gorzo or Wells next year. But it’s not impossible to think that Silva will spend most of the year on the DL.
elgato - November 9, 2010
Garland is from our system.
BucknerKongCardenal - November 9, 2010
Barely.
Al Yellon - November 10, 2010
Why barely?
He was a Cubs farmhand.
elgato - November 10, 2010
For 147 Innings
aaronb - November 10, 2010
Yeah but...
The Padres thought he was good enough to improve their pitching staff and their pitching staff was good enough to contend…because they signed him.
He’s a durable ground ball pitcher, and there is a Joel Piniero chance that as a pitcher, he now “gets it” (like Quade). In theory, signing Garland means that any of the Cubs starters, long as some of them waive their no trade contracts, could be traded for some help on offense.
BucknerKongCardenal - November 9, 2010
That is an outstanding list of fine players!!!!!
The Cubs have done an AMAZING job!
I just hope you are wrong and Koyie Hill comes back next year!!!!!
.213 hitting catchers are hard to find despite how much the manager wants to play him!
TJ11 - November 9, 2010
Opening Day payroll 2010
Isn’t necessarily the actual Cub payroll in 2010. The Cubs trimmed some money on Lilly in 2010, and I’d guess Lee, Fontenot and Theriot as well. Ricketts may be looking at a smaller number as he says he’s going to cut payroll…which means 135 million might be on the high end of a speculation.
BucknerKongCardenal - November 9, 2010
Well we can
ak123 - November 9, 2010
sorry
Since getting my new laptop BCB seems to like to publish stuff before I finish typing!
ak123 - November 9, 2010
Well we can't say we didn't see this coming
In 2007….
ak123 - November 9, 2010
The Cubs didnt win it in 2007 or 2008 though. So you’re beating a dead horse that doesnt even exist.
blbnow - November 9, 2010
hendry
freed up the money for bradley. he could do the same for dunn,but probably wont. i love how the cubs cry poverty whenever they dont want to sign a player. the way this team had trouble scoring runs this year you would think the cubs would want dunn.
NOMAR - November 13, 2010
Cubs Payroll 2011
Cubs should just sign wood and Laroche for about 10 million. Wood would be a good addition to hold down a young bullpen and bring some fans back to Wrigley. The bullpen is gonna be a lot better next year. At the end i think the bullpen had 20 innings straight without giving up a run. Aramis is gonna bounce back too. So i expect we will at least be .500 and competing if we don’t have soph. slumps.
Mitchener - November 13, 2010
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Bleed Cubbie Blue to post a comment.