Update On The "Great Moves".

[KBisBack!]

It's silly to talk about how much "better" they were 2 years ago because they won 71 games tied for 5th worst in the league. Rationalize it however you want but the fact of the matter is they wouldn't have won 90 games in the next two years with or without Garza and Soriano. I'm sorry but that's just the way it is.They would have had to spend upwards of $75 million more per year to get there and with a payroll that was already hovering around $100 mil that just isn't going to happen. And even then it's no guarantee the players they bought would have panned out. Look at Josh Hamilton, had they signed him he would have just been another large albatross around the teams neck.

This is all pure opinion and not a shred of factual content to it.

There are moves that could have been made, keeping Garza and Soriano and spending less than an extra $75 million that could have given the team a chance to win 90 games.

You understand the concept of a prospect right? By your argument it's pointless to even draft players because most of them will never even become major league players. They spent around $5 million and turn that into a prospect who when healthy was a top 50 prospect. As a comparison they spent $6.7 million on signing Bryant.

I clearly understand what a prospect is more than you do.

Spending $5M for a top 50 prospects will net you an average major league player probably about 30-35% of the time and an above average player about 15% of the time.

Spending $5M on a proven major league player will give you a much better chance of getting that average or above average player.

They saved 2.5 mil on Z's contract along with along with 6.8 million on Soriano's. That's $9 mil which effectively pays for the $4.75 mil they payed Maholm and $6 mil for Feldman.

Wrong.

They also had to pay Volstad's contract.

They didn't save any money.

Just like they now need a quality player to play LF for the team. So there goes most of the $6.8M 'saved' on Soriano.

You do understand that the Cubs still need to field players don't you?? Soriano will have to be replaced.

As I said there's stuff to dislike, about what the cubs have done but I hardly think selling Garza and Soriano made any difference. If you truly feel it did then please suggest a scenario that would have lead them to an 85-90 win season they would have needed over the past 2 years to make the wild card. Even if they keep Dempster the team that had all three was 71-91.

I've provided scenarios where they could have kept Ramirez, added Fielder, as well as another quality starter to the rotation that could have easily had the team win 85-90 games while keeping the payroll probably no more than $150M

And I am not going to comment much on your whole WAR breakdown. You went to a lot of work on it to present a case which is a vast improvement over what the Troll Patrol does so I thank you for contributing to actual discussion.

But I am not a fan of WAR as it simply does not translate equally to the standings.

I just picked one team from last year, so be prepared for the onslaught of Troll Patrol poor sample size trolling, but I only have time to chose one team right now.

From Fangraphs the Angels last year had a 37.2 offensive WAR and a 8.6 pitching WAR which adds to 45.8 supposed wins above the replacement level o 48 games which should have the Angels winning almost 94 games by the 'stats'. They won 89 games. They also had the second highest team UZR/150 before the Troll Patrol claims that poor defense is the difference in those 5 games.

Ok, so a second example from last year....

The Orioles. They had an offensive WAR of 12.9 and a pitching WAR of 15.8, so WAR would tell you that they should have been a below .500 team winning about 77 games (76.7). They won 93 games.

Now despite the Troll Patrol's whining that some of us think spending money guarantees success and that we want to spend big on FA and abandon the farm system, that is not what has even been remotely suggested.

It has been suggested that spending big gives you a better chance at winning and a greater margin for error on missing on FA signings or prospects busting and that some of us would like to see more resources expended on the major league team to at least make an effort at fielding a competitive team at the same time as they are developing the farm system.

 

[KBisBack!]

And we shall see but here are the early results:
Since Feldman's last start in a Cubs uniform: 17-14
Since Garza's last start in a Cubs uniform: 7-8
Since Soriano's last start in a Cubs uniform: 5-4

The last two, especially the last one, are a more accurate sample size of what the current team is.

Since Feldman's last start the Cubs were 5-0 in games started by Garza. Take those away and the team is 12-14.

Also since Feldman's last start, most if not all of Soriano's hot streak took place and is therefore reflected in that record as well.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

The last two, especially the last one, are a more accurate sample size of what the current team is.

Since Feldman's last start the Cubs were 5-0 in games started by Garza. Take those away and the team is 12-14.

Also since Feldman's last start, most if not all of Soriano's hot streak took place and is therefore reflected in that record as well.

You assume we go 0-5 in all non Garza starts? LOL ok....

 

[nwfisch]

You are right that we are a big market team. But when Theo took over we never had any assets, now we do.

And those teams don't lose 100 games because they have amazing farm systems, something we didn't have in the past. STL could lose Pujols, Boston could lose A Gon, Ellsbury, etc.. And replace them with farm guys.

If we want to be consistently good year after year, it requires a deep farm system. We didn't have one and had to blow things up.

What was Andrew Cashner?

 

[Parade_Rain]

What was Andrew Cashner?

An asset that was traded for a different asset.

 

[KBisBack!]

You assume we go 0-5 in all non Garza starts? LOL ok....

Nope.

But I did assume you could understand basic math.

Dabs listed the Cubs at 17-14 since the Feldman trade.

Had I assumed the Cubs would go 0-5 in those starts that would make the Cubs record as 12-19, not 12-14. I simply removed the games from the record since Garza has been removed from the team.

 

[KBisBack!]

What was Andrew Cashner?

Or Starlin Castro, Matt Garza, Shark, Sean Marshall, Javier Baez, Soriano, etc.

 

[beckdawg]

Waiting for the first wave of prospect to be successful is suicide. To many fail for that. The Cubs have their first wave, now they need to keep building while putting out a team that can compete and then you intergrade the young kids as years go on.

This is actually a rather compelling comment. I agree to an extent. I know a lot of people don't believe in WAR but I think it's useful in this sort of analysis. If we go by the 48 wins being replacement level that means to get to 90 wins and the playoffs you need +42 WAR. Last year the cards got 1.4 WAR out of their bull pen and 3.5 WAR out of their bench. So if we use them as a bench mark of a playoff contender, that means you need 2.85 WAR on average for your 5 starters and 8 position players.

The problem is it's obviously fairly difficult to get 2.85 WAR out of every guy. Last year 8 C's compiled a WAR higher than 2.85, 8 1B, 11 2B, 10 SS, 11 3B, 30 OF and 37 SP's. Samardzija is on pace for 3.3, Wood is on pace for 3.1 and Jackson is on pace for 2.9. There's not any huge surprises here except maybe Wood. However he did compile a 2.2 WAR in 2010 and he's hitting 27 next year which tends to be when most players start to hit their prime. Assuming that's the case they probably have their 2-4 starters. for the foreseeable future.

C - Welington Castillo(2.2 WAR projection but had 1.0 WAR last year so seems realistic with more ABs)
1B - Anthony Rizzo(3.1 WAR projection on a similar pace as last year)
2B - Darwin Barney(1.1 WAR projection but has 2.1 WAR the previous 2)
SS - Starlin Castro(0.5 WAR projection but past 3 years he has 2.77 WAR)
3B - Luis Valbuena(2.1 WAR projection on a similar historical pace)
LF - ?
CF - David DeJesus(2.4 WAR projection had 2.3 WAR average the previous 5 years)
RF - Nate Schierholtz(2.1 WAR projection is well above previous years)

SP - ?
SP - Jeff Samardzija(3.3 WAR projection)
SP - Edwin Jackson(2.9 WAR projection)
SP - Travis Wood(3.1 WAR projection)
SP - ?

That's +23 WAR. Castro and Barney probably rebound some but I doubt everyone else is as high. I doubt they get another +14 WAR out of the 3 positions with ?'s and I doubt their bullpen/bench puts up the 5 WAR the cards did. The cubs have typically found good back of the rotation guys the past few years and could probably bring Baker back fairly cheap. If Baker is remotely close to his past self he posted a 3.18 WAR average over the past 5 years he played. There's not many front line starters who will be FA's. Matt Garza and Josh Johnson are the only top tier starters. Tim Lincecum is also out there but he's been a shell of his former self the past couple of years. Conservatively they might get 4 WAR out of the 2 open pitching slots. If they an get 1.5-2 out of LF that would put them around 80 wins.

Simply put, to be a true contender next year they'd have to get a bit drastic. Making a run at someone like Cano would be interesting. He has averaged 5.88 WAR the past 4 seasons. He also wouldn't be blocking a prospect unless they plan to move Castro/Baez to 2B. If they land Cano, Garza and get Baker cheap they would have a shot to get to 90 wins.

But, what the cubs really need is for their talented hitters to finally reach the majors. Specifically at 3B and in the OF they have a lot of talent in the minors which in theory would upgrade them quite a bit.

 

[beckdawg]

This is all pure opinion and not a shred of factual content to it.

There are moves that could have been made, keeping Garza and Soriano and spending less than an extra $75 million that could have given the team a chance to win 90 games.

Which is the exact thing you're doing as well. I attempted to illustrate this with WAR. And while you obviously don't agree with it, it's at least an attempt to prove my point with something actual teams use. Saying Fielder + Ramirez + a quality starter gets them to 90 wins is entire speculation. In my example I upgraded them at CF, RF, SP and also kept Ramirez like you suggested. Fielder hit 30 HR, 108 RBI, .313 avg in 2012 compared to 32 HR, 97 RBI, .267 avg that Beltran had. I'll give you that Fielder is marginally better as a hitter but he's also a poor defender and for the price of him you could have had both Beltran and Crisp which are probably more valuable. And even doing so WAR only got them to 85 wins. Now sure it's not an exact predictor but it generally puts teams close to their actual performance and as it's a hypothetical argument that is as close as we will ever get.

But for the sake of argument let's say that they got to 90 wins and made the playoffs. Their rotation would have been weaker than both SF and DET. So, it's rather unlikely they would have won a world series anyways and it would be a pretty big stretch to say they could have won a title. As I said before some where, there is a value to a playoff team that doesn't win a title. But at the end of the day if you're spending $150-175 million in salary per year you had better win a title.

I clearly understand what a prospect is more than you do. Spending $5M for a top 50 prospects will net you an average major league player probably about 30-35% of the time and an above average player about 15% of the time. Spending $5M on a proven major league player will give you a much better chance of getting that average or above average player.

They spent $5 mil(1 year deal) on a proven major league player and at the trade deadline they weren't in contention. Are you suggesting they should have held on to Maholm for the hell of it? And it's not like they didn't replace him.. They did the same thing the following year with Feldman and Baker. I don't see what your arguing here. If you want to argue they should have re-signed Garza instead of dealing him then fine. But how the hell can anyone complain about what they did with Maholm/Feldman? In fact, they got great value for Maholm. Compare what the cubs got to what the Astros got for Bud Norris(arguably a better pitcher). The prospects they got in return aren't even top 10 in the Astro's system now. And sure Vizcaíno has injury concerns but as you appropriately mentioned, prospects are a gamble and if healthy Vizcaino could be a big time player if he ever pans out where as it's unlikely what the Astros got would do the same.

Now, I'm not against them spending money on major league talent. But my entire point is that you have to home grown cheap talent to go with it or you end up with a bloated roster that is unsustainable. The Hendry era is a perfect example of that. My entire argument with WAR left out another important detail. Injuries to a team like that with no farm system destroy it. And unlike the major league roster, it's very difficult now to build a farm system quickly with the new rules the MLB has put on draft spending and international spending. And as you stated prospects do fail. That's why you need a lot of them.

The crux of the issue here is how you allocate your money. Some like yourself say they should be spending some on the MLB team. Others are fine with the approach they have taken. I'm honestly more in the middle. But as I've stated many times even with the type of spending you suggest I don't see the cubs as a playoff team the past 2 years. And that ignores the fact that the Ricketts obviously wanted to reduce spending while they renovated wrigley. I mean it's easy to say they should have dropped an extra $50 mil/year in 2012 but who says the Ricketts even would have allowed Theo and company? Even to add one top of the line player it would have been a 20-25% increase in payroll. Maybe they Ricketts would have let that go but 1 player didn't get them there.

 

[mountsalami]

When is the last time any of those teams lost a 100 games? TB cant win it because they cant keep their assets. St. Louis reloads every year and is always in contention. They have never bombed to reload their system. Never. San Fran will spend big money and had a core of pitchers that are falling apart right now. The Cubs needed to build the farm, but now it is time to get competitive. This is a big market team with big market assets. Waiting for the first wave of prospect to be successful is suicide. To many fail for that. The Cubs have their first wave, now they need to keep building while putting out a team that can compete and then you intergrade the young kids as years go on.

Good post Silence.

 

[mountsalami]

Without quoting the poster. I like the fact that some believe we currently have more assets now than before with Boy Blunder. I'm sure of the fact we now have more garbage and unknowns than before. I'm not sure what the definition of asset really is as it's being used.

Is it a successful ML player that can be traded for prospects. Is it a group of prospects that can be traded for a ML player.

We don't seem to have an abundance of assets. We do however have an abundance of hope, false hope, or just plain garbage, depending on how you want to see it.

If nothing legitimate is picked up during free agency this coming offseason to IMPROVE the team other than just more garbage for flipping. I could see next year being far worse than the previous two. But we will have more assets ?

 

[KBisBack!]

Which is the exact thing you're doing as well.

Not quite.

I have consistently supplied the historical data that shows the low success rate of even the top 100 prospects from Baseball America becoming above average major league players.

And even doing so WAR only got them to 85 wins. Now sure it's not an exact predictor but it generally puts teams close to their actual performance and as it's a hypothetical argument that is as close as we will ever get.

And as I illustrated previously, WAR only got the Orioles to about 77 wins last year when in reality they won 93 games.

But for the sake of argument let's say that they got to 90 wins and made the playoffs. Their rotation would have been weaker than both SF and DET. So, it's rather unlikely they would have won a world series anyways and it would be a pretty big stretch to say they could have won a title.

No one has guaranteed by spending money last year they would have won a title.

But even a .500 season and missing the playoffs would have been a hell of a lot better than 101 losses.

As I said before some where, there is a value to a playoff team that doesn't win a title. But at the end of the day if you're spending $150-175 million in salary per year you had better win a title.

Not true.

If you are spending $150-175 million in salary and not making a profit, well then you are correct. You probably better win a title.

However if you can spend $150-175 million in salary and remain a profitable team, there is no reason you shouldn't be doing that and you don't have to be winning a title because you are still profitable. The Cubs are probably in that category of being able to spend like that and remain profitable no matter how poor the current owner cries and has people fooled to believe.

They spent $5 mil(1 year deal) on a proven major league player and at the trade deadline they weren't in contention. Are you suggesting they should have held on to Maholm for the hell of it? And it's not like they didn't replace him.. They did the same thing the following year with Feldman and Baker. I don't see what your arguing here. If you want to argue they should have re-signed Garza instead of dealing him then fine. But how the hell can anyone complain about what they did with Maholm/Feldman? In fact, they got great value for Maholm. Compare what the cubs got to what the Astros got for Bud Norris(arguably a better pitcher). The prospects they got in return aren't even top 10 in the Astro's system now. And sure Vizcaíno has injury concerns but as you appropriately mentioned, prospects are a gamble and if healthy Vizcaino could be a big time player if he ever pans out where as it's unlikely what the Astros got would do the same.

First off, lets wait until Vizcaino even throws a competitive pitch for the Cubs organization before we go falling over ourselves about what 'great value' he is. It is has been an entire year after he was acquired and he hasn't thrown a single competitive pitch. What if during rehab on his first pitch he totally blows out his elbow and never pitches again? Not an entirely out of the blue scenario considering he hasn't been able to pitch for most of the last two seasons now. Will that still be 'great value'?

How can anyone complain about what they did with Maholm and Feldman??

Well people can complain because it hasn't, and may never end up actually improving the major league roster. It definitely has made the major league roster worse. That is the only definite so far.

Yeah the Orioles got a better deal for Norris. Duquette is a better GM than what we have.

Now, I'm not against them spending money on major league talent. But my entire point is that you have to home grown cheap talent to go with it or you end up with a bloated roster that is unsustainable.

No one has ever said the team should not develop cheap home grown talent, so to keep bringing it up is a waste. Everyone agrees.

On to the next point which I will omit the obvious agenda from with your Hendry comment and over reliance on a broken stat or metric in WAR.

And unlike the major league roster, it's very difficult now to build a farm system quickly with the new rules the MLB has put on draft spending and international spending. And as you stated prospects do fail. That's why you need a lot of them.

This is the exact point many of us have been trying to make.

With the new rules in place on draft and international spending, you correctly point out that it is now very difficult to build a farm system quickly and easier to build a major league roster.

Yet the plan the Cubs are currently under taking completely ignores the easy part and places all the eggs of building the franchise into the hard part.

Some of us would like to still see the same number of eggs placed in building the farm system (max spending on draft etc) and some more eggs placed in the easier basket of building the major league roster.

Many people have said that the easy part should wait until the hard part is completed. Doesn't make sense to me.

But as I've stated many times even with the type of spending you suggest I don't see the cubs as a playoff team the past 2 years.

And of course you saw the Orioles and Athletics as playoff teams last year during the prior offseason??

Heck both those teams might make the playoffs again this year.

Even though it probably looked to most 'experts' that neither team had a chance to make the playoffs the next two seasons, they went ahead and still tried to field the best possible team they could, and guess what? They got rewarded for it.

At least the appearance of making every possible effort to field the best team every year is all some of us are asking for, and sometimes when you try, the unexpected happens.

When you don't even try, the unexpected never happens.

And that ignores the fact that the Ricketts obviously wanted to reduce spending while they renovated wrigley. I mean it's easy to say they should have dropped an extra $50 mil/year in 2012 but who says the Ricketts even would have allowed Theo and company? Even to add one top of the line player it would have been a 20-25% increase in payroll. Maybe they Ricketts would have let that go but 1 player didn't get them there.

And I have consistently and equally placed the blame on Ricketts as the Front Office.

 

[mountsalami]

At least the appearance of making every possible effort to field the best team every year is all some of us are asking for, and sometimes when you try, the unexpected happens.

When you don't even try, the unexpected never happens.

Very well stated KB.:clap: That right there has been my complaint from the very beginning of this circus regime.

Nice to see a young Garza gone for a pile of somedays and maybes. It's always nice to hear from other Cub fans that we are not going to be good anyway so I think it's a good deal. Terrible rational and goes to show how much they suck up the PR Bullshit campaign. In fact, it sets us back even further in hopes that lightning in a bottle will strike to replace him. I would have rather seen the lightning strike to compliment him. Disgusting to know that they invest in Edwin Jackson over Matt Garza. Garza has the ability and the mindset to beat anyone on any given day.

This team has rid themselves of any value to date. So where does that put us now ?

 

[Flacco4Prez]

Very well stated KB.:clap: That right there has been my complaint from the very beginning of this circus regime.

Nice to see a young Garza gone for a pile of somedays and maybes. It's always nice to hear from other Cub fans that we are not going to be good anyway so I think it's a good deal. Terrible rational and goes to show how much they suck up the PR Bullshit campaign. In fact, it sets us back even further in hopes that lightning in a bottle will strike to replace him. I would have rather seen the lightning strike to compliment him. Disgusting to know that they invest in Edwin Jackson over Matt Garza. Garza has the ability and the mindset to beat anyone on any given day.

This team has rid themselves of any value to date. So where does that put us now ?

Matt Garza is going to cost a lot more than Edwin Jackson lol.

The fact that the Cubs goal is to finish .500 says everything. However this team is a lot more watchable than prior years. At this time last year our rotation was filled with a bunch of A or AA guys and a soon to be shut down Samardzija. Big difference. Two years ago had to be the biggest train wreck of a baseball season I can remember. The 2011 Cubs were like the MLB version of the 2012 NFL Jets

 

[mountsalami]

Matt Garza is going to cost a lot more than Edwin Jackson lol.

The fact that the Cubs goal is to finish .500 says everything. However this team is a lot more watchable than prior years. At this time last year our rotation was filled with a bunch of A or AA guys and a soon to be shut down Samardzija. Big difference. Two years ago had to be the biggest train wreck of a baseball season I can remember. The 2011 Cubs were like the MLB version of the 2012 NFL Jets

I doubt Garza would have broken the bank.

Thanks for not using my Chiefs as a comparison, even though they sent six to the Pro Bowl last year. Just goes to show what piss poor coaching can do. That's what I believe the Cubs were up against in 2011 and a new owner unwilling to keep the ML team competitive. The team is much worse off now and thinking that things are so much better after losing 100 games last season and calling this one some kind of victory is foolish.

The same goal of getting to .500 was announced last season by our tattooed Special person, so it's very nice to see him come up with something creative for this season also. :shrug:

 

[Sunbiz1]

Very well stated KB.:clap: That right there has been my complaint from the very beginning of this circus regime.

Nice to see a young Garza gone for a pile of somedays and maybes. It's always nice to hear from other Cub fans that we are not going to be good anyway so I think it's a good deal. Terrible rational and goes to show how much they suck up the PR Bullshit campaign. In fact, it sets us back even further in hopes that lightning in a bottle will strike to replace him. I would have rather seen the lightning strike to compliment him. Disgusting to know that they invest in Edwin Jackson over Matt Garza. Garza has the ability and the mindset to beat anyone on any given day.

This team has rid themselves of any value to date. So where does that put us now ?

So where does that put us now ? >>>

>>>Same place Cub fans were in a decade ago, a shitty on the field product dumfucks still pay to see...

Which is why you still have a shitty product dumb fucks still pay to ignore.

**** the Cubs, and their ****** ownership.

 

[TL1961]

Not as laughable as some posters' rationale about how minor league players with high expectations and upsides never fail......

Or how Theo and Jed make no mistakes.

Or how throwing away seasons for high draft picks is acceptable.

Dammit, there I go being a realistic fan again.....

I haven't seen one single person say these things on this board - ever.

 

[mountsalami]

Which is why you still have a shitty product dumb fucks still pay to ignore.

**** the Cubs, and their ****** ownership.

So you are not willing to buy their groceries knowing that they are not willing to invite you over and put anything on your plate ?

How foolish.

 

[Flacco4Prez]

I doubt Garza would have broken the bank.

Thanks for not using my Chiefs as a comparison, even though they sent six to the Pro Bowl last year. Just goes to show what piss poor coaching can do. That's what I believe the Cubs were up against in 2011 and a new owner unwilling to keep the ML team competitive. The team is much worse off now and thinking that things are so much better after losing 100 games last season and calling this one some kind of victory is foolish.

The same goal of getting to .500 was announced last season by our tattooed Special person, so it's very nice to see him come up with something creative for this season also. :shrug:

Nah Chiefs were bad but they weren't a joke like the Jets. Everything was wrong from top to bottom in that organization and I think that is what was going on with the Cubs. Chiefs could win between 7-10 games this year IMO

The players didn't respect the manager and they just weren't very good players anyway. That core missed the playoffs in 2009, 2010, and 2011. It was time to blow up the team. The White Sox this year are in somewhat of the same boat the Cubs were in that year. Sox should have just blown the team up last year, when some of their players actually had value. They didn't and waited now the only player worth a damn on the team is the one guy they will not trade (Sale). The Cubs avoided that, and they still should have blown it up when Hendry was here.

Instead of looking at the bad moves like Stewart. Look at the trades that landed us guys like Travis Wood, or someone worth more than a sack of shit for Marmol. And Delgado, the guy the Cubs would have gotten had Dempster not been a ****** has been great for Arizona this year. Due to the new CBA there won't be as many great FA's available in the future which is why this shit is taking place.

 

[Flacco4Prez]

The problem I have with this team is why guys like Cole Gillespe are even seeing the field