Bleed Cubbie Blue

Madison Cub Fan - February 11, 2012 reply

Me too

jpeters407 - February 11, 2012 reply

What "convinces" you, Al?

Someone else signing him and him becoming a 30 HR, 120 RBI guy in a year or two? You’d be “convinced” then, right?
You’ll lobby, beg, plead & grovel for a 35 year old pitcher (who has no upside at all) who’ll pitch 3 innings a week for a team with ZERO chance at anything in ‘12, but, don’t want to take a chance on a 26 year old player who has a “sky’s the limit” upside? Peculiar.

Easy Ed - February 11, 2012 reply

I would rather take a risk on Soler.

19 YO, less cost, long term value. You hit the concern right on the head, Cespedes is 26 years old (he claims) and his competition rivals High A. How many 26 year old players are there in High A that would demand $40 million?

jpeters407 - February 11, 2012 reply

To your point

How many hit 33 jacks in 90 games with an OBP approaching .500?

I’m not pro or anti-cespedes but i dont think your comparison is valid given all of the numbers and variables this unique situation presents.

CubbyBlues - February 11, 2012 reply

I think the money could be better spent on a known commodity

when the Cubs are ready to compete. The history with Cuban players is mostly negative, especially hitters.

jpeters407 - February 11, 2012 reply

I agree

I don’t want it spent on him or Yu right now. The Cubs don’t need help for next year, they need help in a few years. So I’d rather see a 19 year old signed.

Could he be an AS possibly, but am I going to question the decisions of people who know what they are doing when it comes to scouting? For right now I’m going to trust TheoJed scouting reports as opposed to who ever is scouting for the Marlins.

The same number that are considered top prospects there at 26...

jesus christos - February 11, 2012 reply

but, don’t want to take a chance on a 26 year old player who has a "sky’s the limit" upside? Peculiar.

to be fair, he wanted to spend even more money for darvish

Because Darvish has proven himself against higher level competition than Cespedes.

that's debatable at best

and even if the level of competition is higher in japan than it is in cuba it’s still probably equivalent to the difference in competition between A ball and A+ball which has almost no value when it comes to predicting MLB success. neither guy has proven anything meaningful, so your stance on the two really makes very little sense.

circuitclout - February 12, 2012 reply

Well said it is very peculiar

This isn’t an either/or scenario regarding Cespedes and Soler. Soler is a done deal. It amazes me to see everyone’s take on a player they have never play, including myself, this guy has been scouted heavily for years, so I trust our front office and believe the Cubs are the frontrunners. Also RIP Whitney Houston, never a big pop music fan but she had staggering talent and died way to young.

joeby231 - February 12, 2012 reply

Soler and Concepcion

in that order were my preferences. While SSS applies, and I’m not a scout, Caspedes (at 26) looked pitiful on mediocre breaking pitches. Maybe he will ramp up and crush MLB pitching in a few years, but I’m skeptical.

As for Soler being ‘a done deal’, I hope he is. I also hope he doesn’t get a big league deal. H needs at least two years of seasoning, and we’re loading up on guys on the 40-Man tht aren’t there yet.

Are your sources telling you...

…that Soler is a done deal with the Cubs?

daver - February 12, 2012 reply

Not to speak for Joeby231

But he did say that a few weeks ago. I’m very hopeful, but trying to not get overly optimistic about it.

I just hope Joeby's real name isn't Scott Swain.

daver - February 12, 2012 reply

Haha, does Joeby have a twitter account???

Get over

the Kerry Wood thing. It’s one thing to have an opinion, it’s another to be annoyingly obsessed.

tomas21 - February 12, 2012 reply

Thank you.

And the two things aren’t even remotely related.

$3 million for a useful middle reliever who’s proved his value on the field and in the clubhouse

~~- compared to -~~

$40 million or more for a completely unknown quantity

I know which money I’d be more willing to spend.

Hrm.

Not sure why that strikethrough is there.

...

You’ll lobby, beg, plead & grovel for a 35 year old pitcher (who has no upside at all) who’ll pitch 3 innings a week for a team with ZERO chance at anything in ‘12

I don’t recall him begging, pleading and groveling for Rodrigo Lopez….

jerry morales rules - February 11, 2012 reply

Would make more sense

Easy Ed - February 12, 2012 reply

Cespedes

I just don’t see a shorter deal making sense for the Cubs. If their scouts believe that Cespedes is worth acquiring, than, IMO, you want him under your control for the full six years. While he’s either going to make a major league club out of spring training or be expected to join the club soon there after, he’s far from a finished project. The team that signs him is also going to be paying for his development. If I’m a GM and I’m paying for Cespedes, I want him under my control for several years after he’s adjusted to MLB (which he’s done on my dime). Imagine if Aroldis Chapman was only signed to a four year deal… he’d be half way towards becoming a free agent and the Reds

I think that more money for less years would be a particularly poor idea here. If anything, I’d say that a shorter deal, in this case, should net him less average dollars. Again, there is an adjustment period for him and you want him under your team’s control during his prime years. Cespedes is not likely to be worth the $7M in his first year or so, but as he improves, he’ll likely be worth more than that over the later years of the deal. This is why you’re willing to spend more money up front, because you want him under your control for years 3-6.

This isn’t a Prince Fielder situation, where he’s already in his prime so a shorter deal means more average dollars.

dmlichte - February 11, 2012 reply

edit

Cut off the first paragraph… should read:
Imagine if Aroldis Chapman was only signed to a four year deal… he’d be half way towards becoming a free agent and the Reds would be nowhere near recooping their investment.

dmlichte - February 11, 2012 reply

Correct me if I'm wrong...

I believe, although these are FA, they still technically follow drafted players rules for their next FA agreement. This is why you are always hearing about a 6 year deal – the player would be under team control for 6 years regardless of the contract length.

Basically, this contract is buying out their rookie contract (3 years) and their 3 arb years (4-6). This is the reason players like Concepcion demand a major league contract – it requires the Cubs to put him on the 40 man roster, therefore using up their eligibility immediately, even if they are in the minors. This guarantees them a new contract in 6 years instead of having a team pay them, stash them in the minors for awhile, and then keep them for 6 years on the ML roster down the road.

bdlugz - February 11, 2012 reply

Slider in the dirt.

Swing and a miss.

At least a contract like that limits Soler to 6@25 all day

timh815 - February 11, 2012 reply

Good point

Makes the Cubs more likely to get Soler.

cubzfan - February 11, 2012 reply

This deal won't get it done

It’s an opportunity for the Cubs to come in and offer $50M for 6 years.

Um...

… no thanks. Outbid the Marlins on this? Sorry, not interested.

jerry morales rules - February 11, 2012 reply

High upside

It’s exactly the type of risk the Cubs should be taking in the position they are in.

I'm not convinced about the high upside.

Curve balls and sliders

may get banned

If it is like the spitter was, current pitchers can continue to throw them

Including a lot of guys who are younger than Cespedes.

ClarkFan - February 12, 2012 reply

Neither am I

What’s your point?

The fact is that plenty of professional scouts feel that he does have a high upside. It’s a risk, for sure, but the Cubs in the position they are in need player that can outperform his contract.

I agree with you that some scouts feel he has a high upside.

Others disagree. I’m with the disagree-ers.

Ugh

But this same argument can be made on Darvish. And, most likely, every top tier AAA player.

You are really cherry picking the analysis you believe.

I don't really agree with Al on this... but... I don't understand your point either.

Every single player has pros and cons. We form opinions on these guys based on what we read and what we feel is a likely outcome for that player. He’s not really cherry picking anything… he’s read the good and bad, and decided he wants to go with the bad on this one. He did the same on Darvish and decided to go with the good. I think we all do this for every player we love or hate, rationally or irrationally.

The point that I find weird with Al, is that he doesn’t seem to have a rhyme or reason as to what guys he loves or doesn’t love. The cons he uses for some become a pro on others, and that just makes it a jumbled mess to me. I tend to like guys with similar skill sets – I can tell you what types of hitters and pitchers I’ll rank highly just because I believe in their styles.

No offense meant by this, Al. It’s just that I know you catch a lot of flack around here for your views on certain players, and I thought I’d give my 2 cents as to why that is.

Hey, everyone has opinions here on just about every player.

Some of them aren’t necessarily rational. I’m not sure specifically who you’re talking about when you say

The cons he uses for some become a pro on others

so if you can be specific, maybe I can, too.

Al, this was 100% my point.

Hey, everyone has opinions here on just about every player.
Some of them aren’t necessarily rational.

Seeing as both people who replied to my comment didn’t follow what I was trying to say, I guess I didn’t do a very good job of writing that bit.

As for

so if you can be specific, maybe I can, too

I don’t write things I disagree with you on down, so I don’t really have prime examples. One that comes to mind is pushing for guys like Kazmir, and ripping on guys like RoLo (as our 8th pitcher), when the last time Kazmir had an ERA better than RoLo in any level was 2008.

Using age again someone like LaHair but not against someone like Kila Ka’aihue. Like I said, not the best examples, but to give an idea of what confuses me sometimes.

I thought it made more sense

… to take a chance on a 27-year-old lefthander who MIGHT have been injured and MIGHT have a chance to come back, than on a 35-year-old retread who wasn’t any good when he was good.

Regarding LaHair vs. Kila, Kila drew a lot more walks and even after multiple MLB failures is STILL younger than LaHair.

I hope I’m wrong about LaHair. I fear I’m right.

Odds are

Kila is going to stay younger than LaHair for a long, long time.

madcow256 - February 13, 2012 reply

What kind of odds are you offering?

bdlugz - February 13, 2012 reply

Neither Al nor I are major league scouts

Because of that, we have to rely on experts in the field. However, where I stop is to then parse out the ones that go one way and minimize that opinion for whatever basis he may be doing that.

I have no idea if Cespedas or Darvish are going to be superstars, decent players, or total flops. Al doesn’t either. All we can do is to take the opinions of experts that have scouted these guys and compared that to the risks and benefits that deals like this can provide.

I guess we are not disagreeing, as that was my point as well.

I guess I don’t know what point you were trying to make with the comment I replied to above, then. I thought you were criticizing Al for leaning towards believing the more negative reports than the more positive ones and saying he wasn’t given both equal credit. Sorry if it was confusing?

I understand your doubts Al...

But you have no clue what he will be worth. If the people paid to scout him (which I am sure they have done for years now) recommend him highly enough to outbid the Marlins, who are we to say otherwise?

boubucarow - February 11, 2012 reply

I suppose.

But the simple fact that you said “you have no clue what he will be worth” means very few do. If we had any basis for comparison, ANY real inkling of what he’d be actually worth in the major leagues, then sure.

It is a total crapshoot.

Not a total crapshoot

It is clear that he would be a strong defender in either center or right, and that he would hit for some power and have good speed. In other words, he has a floor of being worth a few million a year, even if he hits .235/.295/.450. To a team that values defense, he would surely be worth a minimum of $20 M.

Look at Chris Young this year in AZ. .236/.331/.420 for an OPS+ of 103, and that’s worth 4.8 WAR. If Cespedes could do that for just four years of the contract, he’d be worth paying $40 M.

cubzfan - February 12, 2012 reply

This is what drives me nuts about your analysis

We have NO basis for Darvish either yet you’re proposing spend 2.5 times more for him. Japanese baseball is better than Cuban baseball but not by a whole lot and it’s still a whole lot worse than AAA or MLB.

Darvish is only slightly less of a crapshoot yet the cost to acquire him could severely harm the development of the Cubs if he doesn’t work out. Cespedas is not that.

Agree to disagree.

Japanese baseball is, in fact, a LOT better than Cuban baseball.

In any case, that’s moot since the Cubs did not get him. I think Cespedes is far more of a crapshoot, and you seem to be willing to spend half as much as Darvish got.

No thanks.

Direct scouting is generally

permitted in the Far East. Generally, that makes said scouting more accurate.

Japanese baseball is still a lot worse than MLB

And it’s closer in competition to Cuban baseball than it is to MLB. The level of competition, I think, is only one point (and a minor one at that) that organizations are taking into account.

I’m willing to take the risk on Cespedas because the investment will not cripple the Cubs should it fail the way that Darvish would. I was not at all surprised that Darvish went to a team that is a World Series contender in 2012 because that type of risk makes sense if the team is at that level.

The Cubs aren’t at that level. You aren’t, at all, taking the business risk of deals like this and the status of the organization into consideration. And those are much more important factors than the relevant level of competition between Japanese and Cuban baseball.

I disagree about NPB being closer to Cuban baseball than MLB...

I think that Cuban baseball is somewhere between A and A+, with a couple of legit players sprinkled in here and there. I think NPB is a mix between AA and AAAA – guys that were very good at AAA that just didn’t have the ability to take it to the next level (see: Murton, Matt). I agree that there is a pretty big difference between NPB and MLB, but I think it’s still closer than NPB to Cuban ball.

Agreed.

Again, that’s why I think Darvish is less of a crapshoot than Cespedes.

I don't disagree that Darvish is less of a crapshoot

He is, however, still a crapshoot and one that could severely retard an organization’s growth. Cespedas is not.

The thing is, I’m thinking that Theo and Jed agree with my line of thinking. They certainly weren’t going to go to the mat if the posting offer was at the reported $20M. I also think that they will outbid the contract that is one the table for Cespedas now. We’ll wait and see on that though.

I don't agree that Japanese baseball is that good

If it were, I think you’d see a lot more successful Japanese players in MLB. I’ve heard it compared much closer to AA baseball and based on the relative success of Japanese baseball players in the past decade or so, I tend to believe that.

I do agree that Cuban baseball is probably A/A+ though.

So if you agree with that

… why do you want to give a 26-year-old guy who’s never played above that level a $40 million contract?

Because scouts have looked at him

and many have surmised that he has good upside. As you know, he’s projected as a prospect somewhere in the 7-15 range of the top 100. The level of play is hardly the only factor to consider and I doubt it is even the most important.

Yes, Japanese baseball is better than Cuban baseball. It is still a far cry from MLB. This difference between the two leagues that you point out is only one factor in many that go into the argument for and against these players.

I could ask you why you would want to give a $110M contract to a guy who has never played above a AA level. To me on the surface if that was the only factor, sounds far more ludicrous to me.

For the record, I like Darvish. I can understand why the Rangers made the offer that they did and I hope it works out well for them. However, the situation the Cubs is completely different than the Rangers. It doesn’t make sense for the Cubs to take on that level of risk. It does make sense for them to take the risk with Cespedas.

Agree to disagree.

Actually, wouldn't the opportunity be

To bid $41 M for six years?

cubzfan - February 11, 2012 reply

If the 6/$40 is legit

offer 6/$35.