PDA

View Full Version : When can the Cubs compete again?



NORTH10
07-07-2010, 03:30 PM
Considering this era of Cubs looks to be dying right before our eyes. When can the Cubs get back into a contending mode in your opinion?

ReJo
07-07-2010, 03:45 PM
Next year
They have a ton of talent and plenty of money coming off the books to make a few adjustments put together a contending team.

davidfox11
07-07-2010, 03:48 PM
2 years

scrubs101
07-07-2010, 03:50 PM
2012

poodski
07-07-2010, 04:09 PM
Tonight they will compete against the Diamondbacks.

Jilly Bohnson
07-07-2010, 04:15 PM
Next year has a good chance at being a "Compete thanks to being in a crappy division" type year, and then 2012 is probably when we'll start being legitimately good again.

CubbieSteve
07-07-2010, 04:38 PM
It's going to take a good offseason and some advancements from some young players if we are going to win next year. But I'll say 2012. That's probably when we'll really start to reap the benefits of a solid farm system. Mix in a big time free agent or two and we can be right back to the top of the division imo

Buckwheat
07-07-2010, 05:32 PM
Next year has a good chance at being a "Compete thanks to being in a crappy division" type year, and then 2012 is probably when we'll start being legitimately good again.

I think Reds are going to get only better.. Cardinals will still be fighting for a top spot, too.

Chicago657
07-07-2010, 05:49 PM
I have been saying it since 2008, 2012 through 2015 or '16 are going to be awesome, awesome years if we can avoid overpriced long-term contracts. We have had a ton of money coming off the books which means we can sign free agents+young talent coming up=keys to success. We have the young talent. We will be able to sign the free agents as money comes off the books. This is going to be fun.

Jilly Bohnson
07-07-2010, 05:52 PM
I think Reds are going to get only better.. Cardinals will still be fighting for a top spot, too.

Things could change over the winter, but the Reds of next year look to be pretty similar to the Reds of this year, meaning they'll be pretty good but not great most likely. And the Cards are going to be pretty good too, but they also probably won't be great. They'll both be good teams but much like this year neither will be anything special.

KOENIG
07-07-2010, 06:31 PM
After they get rid of Zambrano and Soriano.

Cub_StuckinSTL
07-07-2010, 06:52 PM
Things could change over the winter, but the Reds of next year look to be pretty similar to the Reds of this year, meaning they'll be pretty good but not great most likely. And the Cards are going to be pretty good too, but they also probably won't be great. They'll both be good teams but much like this year neither will be anything special.

The Reds are also benefiting from an outstanding year out of Rolen. They'll need to replace that but they'll still be good. Haven't they scored 440 some runs and no other nl team is over 400?

2012 is going to probably be the best answer to the OP due to we'll make a splash in FA and hopefully have a proper mix of farm talent and FA's.

duce5858
07-07-2010, 07:09 PM
They can compete next year, but it will take some balls from ownership.

1: Fire Hendry, I don't know who to hire but keep Wilken as the draft guy
2: Do not bring Lou back (see point 8)
3: Let DLee walk or better yet trade him before the deadline
4: Send Soriano to Boston at the deadline for some of the numerous MLB bullpen ready arms the Sox have or whichever 1b prospect they dont want, either Lars Anderson or Anthony Rizzo
5: Trade Z to anyone who will take him for prospects, I think the Rangers are looking for some pitching and they have a loaded farm system, Im eyeing Mitch Moreland who is a 1b/of
*The aforementioned trades would more than likely have to involve the Cubs paying some of the money owed to the players in order to get better quality prospects.

6: trade Ted Lilly for prospects or let him walk and get the draft pick for him (I really like Ted but there is no sense in resigning a 35 year old pitcher)
7: Bring up the kids (Brett Jackson, Jay Jackson, Chris Carpenter, John Gaub, Blake Parker are the guys I'm expecting sometime this year)
8:If the rumors are true and Joe Torre wants the job let him have it, if not bring BB down from the booth or bring Ryno up from double A.
9: trade one of the following to help get rid of the logjam at 2nd base, Theriot, Fontenot or Baker...the Cubs have several players in the minors that are the same types of players that these guys are, trade the higher priced ones to spend the money elsewhere like say Carl Crawford or Carlos Pena or bring Jayson Werth back to Illinois where he belongs (he is from the Springfield area.

10: I like what Scott Rolen said the other day about the Cubs not having the greatest of facilities, upgrading them has to be another priority for the Ricketts clan and one could argue that this should be priority number one.

These would be some radical changes on the north side but lets face it this era of Cubs baseball is over. Lets remember it for what it was, a time of great promise but even greater failure and move on.

zambo4president
07-07-2010, 07:39 PM
2-3 Years is reasonable but hard to speculate without the moves being made yet. Still got Colvin, Castro, Soto as a young nucleus. Brett Jackson will be ready by then as well. Im not too worried we should be in pretty good shape, especially after we sell off everything.

Buckwheat
07-07-2010, 07:40 PM
The Reds are also benefiting from an outstanding year out of Rolen. They'll need to replace that but they'll still be good. Haven't they scored 440 some runs and no other nl team is over 400?

2012 is going to probably be the best answer to the OP due to we'll make a splash in FA and hopefully have a proper mix of farm talent and FA's.

Rolen has been great, but I feel like we'll see more production out of their young outfielders (Bruce, Stubbs, one more who's name slipped my mind). Votto probably won't repeat his numbers either, but still will be very solid and I expect their pitching to be a bit better if Chapman delivers and lives up to the hype.

Mell413
07-07-2010, 07:47 PM
Depends on what the definition of compete is. I still don't think Aramis is this bad. I'm not counting on next year, but it wouldnt surprise me if we won next year. The Cubs do have pitching so that should keep you in it. I'm not too familar with the Reds money situation, but guys like Votto, Cueto, and Volquez will be eligible for arbitration. I think 2012 is probably the year where we can think about WS and while 2011 we may be able to steal a division. Baseball is an odd game where anything can happen.

Captain Obvious
07-07-2010, 10:37 PM
They can compete next year, but it will take some balls from ownership.

1: Fire Hendry, I don't know who to hire but keep Wilken as the draft guy
2: Do not bring Lou back (see point 8)
3: Let DLee walk or better yet trade him before the deadline
4: Send Soriano to Boston at the deadline for some of the numerous MLB bullpen ready arms the Sox have or whichever 1b prospect they dont want, either Lars Anderson or Anthony Rizzo
5: Trade Z to anyone who will take him for prospects, I think the Rangers are looking for some pitching and they have a loaded farm system, Im eyeing Mitch Moreland who is a 1b/of
*The aforementioned trades would more than likely have to involve the Cubs paying some of the money owed to the players in order to get better quality prospects.

6: trade Ted Lilly for prospects or let him walk and get the draft pick for him (I really like Ted but there is no sense in resigning a 35 year old pitcher)
7: Bring up the kids (Brett Jackson, Jay Jackson, Chris Carpenter, John Gaub, Blake Parker are the guys I'm expecting sometime this year)
8:If the rumors are true and Joe Torre wants the job let him have it, if not bring BB down from the booth or bring Ryno up from double A.
9: trade one of the following to help get rid of the logjam at 2nd base, Theriot, Fontenot or Baker...the Cubs have several players in the minors that are the same types of players that these guys are, trade the higher priced ones to spend the money elsewhere like say Carl Crawford or Carlos Pena or bring Jayson Werth back to Illinois where he belongs (he is from the Springfield area.

10: I like what Scott Rolen said the other day about the Cubs not having the greatest of facilities, upgrading them has to be another priority for the Ricketts clan and one could argue that this should be priority number one.

These would be some radical changes on the north side but lets face it this era of Cubs baseball is over. Lets remember it for what it was, a time of great promise but even greater failure and move on.

I stopped reading after number 4. I just love how people choose a team that we should trade a player to. How can you pick the team that wants a player. It would be in the case of Soriano, who would take him. We don't even know if Boston wants him.

NORTH10
07-08-2010, 03:37 AM
Looking at the free agent market after this year...I don't really see a legitimate target. I might be missing something.

duce5858
07-08-2010, 04:04 AM
I stopped reading after number 4. I just love how people choose a team that we should trade a player to. How can you pick the team that wants a player. It would be in the case of Soriano, who would take him. We don't even know if Boston wants him.

Boston has numerous injuries in their outfield and Pedroia is hurt now too... My thoughts were something along the lines of Soriano and a pick'em of Baker/Fontenot/Theriot for some prospects, also the Cubs need a 1b of the future and the Red Sox have 2 guys and one of them will need to be moved...its a pipedream, but its not that far fetched

smokeosama
07-08-2010, 04:26 AM
Unfortunately I think next year is a bit soon. It really depends what deals we can or can't make at the deadline this year. There are several contracts that can and should be unloaded for talent (See Fukudome, Lilly, and others). I love Lilly, but he will garner a very good return. Really I see the Cubs making a serious push in 2-3 years. Think of 2 years being the 2007 Cubs and 3 years hopefully the 2008 Cubs with a better result lol.

Milnertime
07-08-2010, 04:27 AM
They can compete next year, but it will take some balls from ownership.

1: Fire Hendry, I don't know who to hire but keep Wilken as the draft guy
2: Do not bring Lou back (see point 8)
3: Let DLee walk or better yet trade him before the deadline
4: Send Soriano to Boston at the deadline for some of the numerous MLB bullpen ready arms the Sox have or whichever 1b prospect they dont want, either Lars Anderson or Anthony Rizzo
5: Trade Z to anyone who will take him for prospects, I think the Rangers are looking for some pitching and they have a loaded farm system, Im eyeing Mitch Moreland who is a 1b/of
*The aforementioned trades would more than likely have to involve the Cubs paying some of the money owed to the players in order to get better quality prospects.

6: trade Ted Lilly for prospects or let him walk and get the draft pick for him (I really like Ted but there is no sense in resigning a 35 year old pitcher)
7: Bring up the kids (Brett Jackson, Jay Jackson, Chris Carpenter, John Gaub, Blake Parker are the guys I'm expecting sometime this year)
8:If the rumors are true and Joe Torre wants the job let him have it, if not bring BB down from the booth or bring Ryno up from double A.
9: trade one of the following to help get rid of the logjam at 2nd base, Theriot, Fontenot or Baker...the Cubs have several players in the minors that are the same types of players that these guys are, trade the higher priced ones to spend the money elsewhere like say Carl Crawford or Carlos Pena or bring Jayson Werth back to Illinois where he belongs (he is from the Springfield area.

10: I like what Scott Rolen said the other day about the Cubs not having the greatest of facilities, upgrading them has to be another priority for the Ricketts clan and one could argue that this should be priority number one.

These would be some radical changes on the north side but lets face it this era of Cubs baseball is over. Lets remember it for what it was, a time of great promise but even greater failure and move on.
As much as seeing Jayson Werth in Cubbie blue would be, it's not likely to happen.

I've talked to several people who went to high school with him (I'm from Springfield, myself) and they all say that they'd be really surprised to see him end up with the Cubs.

He grew up a die hard Cardinals fan, from what I understand, and the Cubs just aren't on his radar.

windycityD
07-08-2010, 11:35 AM
If set up and done right, 2012 could be the beginning of good things for a sustained period of time. Lots has to happen in those two years, including good drafts and solid player development within. The rest of 2010 and possibly 2011 will be a bridge period.

BDawk4Prez
07-08-2010, 11:41 AM
Hopefully they show up to compete again tonight.

Buckwheat
07-08-2010, 12:27 PM
Hopefully they show up to compete again tonight.

Even if they don't, I'm sure they'll get the automatic win. This team is an unstoppable force right now.

World Series or bust.

Jilly Bohnson
07-08-2010, 12:29 PM
Hopefully they show up to compete again tonight.

About 18 hours late on this joke hoss

behindmydesk
07-08-2010, 12:35 PM
I'd say 2012-2013, especially if hte ownership holds at atleast 140 million dollar payroll.

I personally don't think they will, but if they do 140 is more then enough to compete in the central.

Jilly Bohnson
07-08-2010, 12:39 PM
I'd say 2012-2013, especially if hte ownership holds at atleast 140 million dollar payroll.

I personally don't think they will, but if they do 140 is more then enough to compete in the central.

Ricketts has said we'll maintain a top 3 payroll. I think if he wasn't going to he would have been less committal about that fact.

behindmydesk
07-08-2010, 12:42 PM
Ricketts has said we'll maintain a top 3 payroll. I think if he wasn't going to he would have been less committal about that fact.

And if he follows threw, then I see no problem competing in a division where no one spends more then a 100 million, in the next two years.

Jilly Bohnson
07-08-2010, 12:44 PM
And if he follows threw, then I see no problem competing in a division where no one spends more then a 100 million, in the next two years.

Yeah, especially because Pujols is about to get expensive, which will kill the Cards

windycityD
07-08-2010, 01:16 PM
Ricketts has said we'll maintain a top 3 payroll. I think if he wasn't going to he would have been less committal about that fact.

When and where did he say that?

Either 2b or 1b will be upgraded if more money is tossed around this winter. In the case of 2b, pending what Florida does, Uggla would certainly be a target imo were Hendry still around.

thawv
07-08-2010, 01:38 PM
None of us really know what the plans are for the payroll ideas the Rickets' have in mind. For no reason at all, I'm gonna assume it stays about the same budget.

If no changes are made, we will have 103.5 mil on the books at the end of this season. And that's for 9 guys. Still need to ink 16 more guys. Not very good for next year. After the 2011 season, we have 62.5 mil on the books. And that's for 7 guys. If the 3 opt out players leave, the payroll goes down to 58.5 mil. I think the Cubs buy out Aram for 2 mil instead of giving him 16 mil. We can definitely improve after the 2011 season. But the real noise is going to be made after the 2012 season. The guy we call a left fielder is our only player inked at 19 mil.

Nobody knows what the payroll budget is going to be under the new owners. So it's very hard to speculate on when we can be competitive.

behindmydesk
07-08-2010, 01:43 PM
I googled it, he said it in November. Time will tell who's right

Jilly Bohnson
07-08-2010, 01:47 PM
When and where did he say that?

Either 2b or 1b will be upgraded if more money is tossed around this winter. In the case of 2b, pending what Florida does, Uggla would certainly be a target imo were Hendry still around.

http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2009/11/tom-ricketts-wants-to-improve-cubs-wrigley-bathrooms.html


Ricketts wants the Cubs' payroll to remain in the top three in baseball and he plans on improving the food options and bathrooms at Wrigley Field.

hoosiercubsfan
07-08-2010, 02:06 PM
Baseball's Top 10 GM Candidates

Kim NgGeneral managing jobs in Major League Baseball are, quite obviously, few and far between, and when they do open up, there are always a number of qualified candidates. With a brand new GM opening in Arizona in the wake of Josh Byrnes' firing, it's as good a time as any to scour through big-league front offices and discuss some of the most attractive candidates out there, should the Diamondbacks decide not to stick with interim GM Jerry DiPoto.

Of course, there are many fine candidates that come from different departments and from different teams around the game. The 10 we'll touch on here, however, are some of the most respected and brightest baseball minds in the world. While there are many others who could one day be ready to take on the job of general manager, these names are ready to do so right now.

Al Avila, Tigers (Vice President, Assistant General Manager)
Age: 51
College: St. Thomas University
Experience: Marlins (1992-2001), Tigers (2002-Present)

Avila is long overdue to be a GM. These days he is a key adviser to Tigers general manager Dave Dombrowski. With a long resume that spans more than 20 years, Avila has been a critical part of winning clubs throughout his career. With Detroit, Avila played a key role in the deal that brought in Jeremy Bonderman. From his days working in international operations with the Marlins, he can take credit for one of the most successful international signings ever in Miguel Cabrera. In other words, this is a guy who has consistently had an eye for talent. Other names he can stake a claim to include Livan Hernandez, Edgar Renteria, Alex Gonzalez, Luis Castillo and Josh Beckett.

Ben Cherington, Red Sox (Senior Vice President, Assistant General Manager)
Age: 36
College: Amherst College
Experience: Indians (1998), Red Sox (1999-Present)

For a brief period, Cherington was co-general manager of the Red Sox when Theo Epstein left the club after the 2005 season. He's due for a full-time gig now. Cherington first worked in player development for Boston and now assists Theo Epstein day-to-day with major league player personnel. He has a diverse skill set, and he has experience in amateur scouting, contract negotiations, player development and essentially has a hand in all the duties of a GM already. There are not that many ready-made GM candidates out there with the first-hand experience of Cherington.



Share John Coppolella, Braves (Director, Baseball Administration)
Age: 31
College: Notre Dame
Experience: Yankees (2000-2006), Braves (2006-Present)

Coppolella currently leads the Braves' statistical and arbitration efforts, but he shouldn't be viewed just as an office number-cruncher-type. He has experience in pro scouting from his time with the Yankees and has played a significant role in numerous trades and free agent signings. Coppolella is noted for his work ethic, encyclopedic memory and networking ability. It also doesn't hurt that he's toiled under two of the top general managers of this era, John Schuerholz and Brian Cashman. Even as one of this list's younger candidates, few out there can boast that type of experience in those high-profile environments, and in such an impressive variety of roles.

David Forst, Athletics (Assistant General Manager)
Age: 33
College: Harvard University
Experience: Athletics (1999-Present)

One of the most respected and brightest minds in the game, Forst has spent 11 years working in the well regarded Oakland front office under Billy Beane. Forst, a Harvard University grad, technically falls under the category of "new age" executive, but he brings a college playing background to the table and has extensive experience evaluating players. So, while his strengths may lie in contract negotiations and analysis, he has experience in many different facets of the game, and assisting Billy Beane day-to-day sure can't hurt.

Bill Geivett, Rockies (Assistant General Manager, Vice President of Baseball Operations)
Age: 46
College: University of California at Santa Barbara
Experience: Expos (1994-1996), Devil Rays (1997-1998), Dodgers (1998-2000), Rockies (2001-Present)

A part of pro baseball for more than 20 years, Geivett currently oversees player personnel for the Rockies. If a team is looking for a man that knows, first-hand, the importance of nurturing a strong farm system, look no further than him. Geivett has experience with Montreal, Tampa Bay, Los Angeles and now holds a key role with Colorado, particularly in player development. If you look up and down the Rockies' roster, you will find one of the most homegrown teams in baseball. Perhaps most importantly, Geivett has been an assistant GM since 2000 with the Dodgers, and has long been involved with significant organizational decisions.

Jason McLeod, Padres (Assistant General Manager)
Age: 38
College: Palomar College
Experience: Padres (1994-2003), Red Sox (2004-2009), Padres (2010-Present)

Few in baseball can boast as successful a draft resume as McLeod, and that's his biggest selling point as a GM candidate. His list of current big-leaguers includes Clay Buchholz, Jacoby Ellsbury, Daniel Bard and Justin Masterson. Because of that fantastic success, he has been recognized quickly and has advanced accordingly as one of the best scouting minds in the industry. With a minor league playing career in his background, and working in a respected Boston front office, McLeod brings a very complete resume to the table.

Kim Ng, Dodgers (Vice President, Assistant General Manager)
Age: 42
College: University of Chicago
Experience: White Sox (1991-1996), Yankees (1998-2001), Dodgers (2002-Present)

Ng has long been a strong candidate for a GM position, and it should be only a matter of time before her stellar resume lands her the big job. With nearly 20 years of front office experience under her belt and having interviewed for multiple GM jobs already, few other candidates could bring such experience into an interview process. Ng has had a number of roles over the years, including overseeing the Dodgers' minor-league system, working as an assistant under Brian Cashman with the Yankees and analyzing players for arbitration cases back in the early '90s with the White Sox. In her current role, she plays a key part in all Dodger transactions and is a respected voice for GM Ned Colletti to rely upon.

Damon Oppenheimer, Yankees (Vice President, Amateur Scouting)
Age: 48
College: USC
Experience: Yankees (1993-Present)

Leading the Yankees' scouting department is no easy task, and having a large budget may sound easy but it has its challenges. Oppenheimer, a former minor-league player with the Brewers, has proven to be a tireless worker and creative in terms of his drafts. He's landed some under-the-radar talent like Brett Gardner in his tenure as well as many other big-league contributors like Phil Hughes, Joba Chamberlain and David Robertson. If a club is looking for a "baseball guy" with strengths in player evaluation, Oppenheimer is their man.

A.J. Preller, Rangers (Senior Director, Player Personnel)
Age: 32
College: Cornell University
Experience: Dodgers (2002-2004), Rangers (2005-Present)

It would be difficult to find a harder worker than Preller, who has been an instrumental piece of the puzzle for the Rangers the last few years. He has been the driving force behind the Rangers' rise to powerhouse status on the international market, and has been a key voice in all aspects of Rangers' scouting and player personnel. Preller has worked very closely with Texas general manager Jon Daniels, and has experience when it comes to key organizational decisions. When you consider his experience prior to Texas, in which he worked in both scouting and for Major League Baseball in labor relations, you find someone with a well-rounded background already at a young age.

Logan White, Dodgers (Assistant General Manager, Scouting)
Age: 47
College: Western New Mexico University
Experience: Mariners (1988-1989), Orioles (1990-1992), Padres (1993-1995), Orioles (1996-2001), Dodgers (2002-Present)

You have to look long and hard around the game to find someone with the extensive scouting background of White. With more clubs seeming to grasp the importance of developing talent from within, White becomes an increasingly strong GM candidate. Before taking on his current role, White served as the Dodgers' scouting director and oversaw the drafting of Chad Billingsley, Matt Kemp, James Loney, Russell Martin and Jonathan Broxton. Few in the game can take credit for such a large chunk of a big-league roster.

Frankie Piliere spent the last three seasons working as a scout, most recently in the professional scouting department for the Texas Rangers in 2009. He now serves as the National Baseball Analyst here at FanHouse.

http://mlb.fanhouse.com/2010/07/05/baseballs-top-10-gm-candidates/

Found this pretty interesting synopsis of what potential GM's are out there.

behindmydesk
07-08-2010, 02:10 PM
without a doubt Forst should be our target, with Ng a close 2nd

cowboydoc45
07-08-2010, 02:14 PM
without a doubt Forst should be our target, with Ng a close 2nd

I wouldn't discoutn Gievet either... the Rockies have had a pretty solid team the last few years, and their farm has been pretty strong too. If we are looking at reloading the farm, and building a homegrown team with a few FA splashes, he might be the guy to consider.

Jilly Bohnson
07-08-2010, 02:18 PM
White
Copolella
Ng

In that order. Although I'd be just fine giving Josh Byrnes the job.

windycityD
07-08-2010, 02:19 PM
without a doubt Forst should be our target, with Ng a close 2nd

Preller & Avila are no slouches either. Really, an impressive list overall.

Mell413
07-08-2010, 02:20 PM
I'd prefer Forst. I'm not sure I'm sold on NG. I'm not sure how much involvement she had in this decision and I know it's unfair to judge someone based one one move, but I don't know if I want someone in charge of my team who may have been involved in the Carlos Santana for Casey Blake trade. An impressive list of people to choose from though if we go in a different direction.

Nymfan87
07-08-2010, 02:27 PM
As an outsider looking in, I think you guys really are in decent shape. It might take another season or two of pain, but you have a few very good things going for you:

1) An owner who is willing to spend money and actually seems to care about winning
2) A couple of good young players at the major league and minor league levels
3) A few valuable pieces that can be traded off to help re-stock the farm system
4) You are a big fish (payroll-wise) in a relatively small pond (your division)

If you guys traded away Lee, Silva, Marmol, Fukudome, Lilly, and maybe Aramis Ramirez, and ate money owed to them, you could get some pretty solid prospects in return. And if your owner really wanted to eat a ton of money, Soriano might bring in a decent chip in a trade (he's on pace for a 5.0 WAR season, believe it or not).

But you could probably get a top 100 prospect for Lee or Lilly (or 2-3 decent guys), and a top 50-75 for Marmol, and suddenly the future looks a lot brighter. There would be a perfect storm of young talent coming up and money coming off the books ~2 years down the road, and then you have tons of payroll flexibility to go out and get whoever you want.

cowboydoc45
07-08-2010, 02:31 PM
As an outsider looking in, I think you guys really are in decent shape. It might take another season or two of pain, but you have a few very good things going for you:

1) An owner who is willing to spend money and actually seems to care about winning
2) A couple of good young players at the major league and minor league levels
3) A few valuable pieces that can be traded off to help re-stock the farm system
4) You are a big fish (payroll-wise) in a relatively small pond (your division)

If you guys traded away Lee, Silva, Marmol, Fukudome, Lilly, and maybe Aramis Ramirez, and ate money owed to them, you could get some pretty solid prospects in return. And if your owner really wanted to eat a ton of money, Soriano might bring in a decent chip in a trade (he's on pace for a 5.0 WAR season, believe it or not).

But you could probably get a top 100 prospect for Lee or Lilly (or 2-3 decent guys), and a top 50-75 for Marmol, and suddenly the future looks a lot brighter. There would be a perfect storm of young talent coming up and money coming off the books ~2 years down the road, and then you have tons of payroll flexibility to go out and get whoever you want.

Honestly, if people are signed wisely (i.e. no Bradleys, no Sorianos, no Zambranos), this would be a good thing, but we have to get a serious GM first. The sudden availability of money and "win now" mentality got Hendry in a little bit of a bind, IMHO.

Nymfan87
07-08-2010, 02:39 PM
Honestly, if people are signed wisely (i.e. no Bradleys, no Sorianos, no Zambranos), this would be a good thing, but we have to get a serious GM first. The sudden availability of money and "win now" mentality got Hendry in a little bit of a bind, IMHO.

Well of course being smart with your money always helps. Marlon Byrd was a spectacular signing and has a super cheap deal for two more seasons. If you guys could trade him to a team like the Braves for a good prospect (top 80 or so), you'd be insane not to.

BDawk4Prez
07-08-2010, 03:09 PM
About 18 hours late on this joke hoss

What joke?

I DO want them to compete tonight. :shrug:

windycityD
07-08-2010, 03:36 PM
Well of course being smart with your money always helps. Marlon Byrd was a spectacular signing and has a super cheap deal for two more seasons. If you guys could trade him to a team like the Braves for a good prospect (top 80 or so), you'd be insane not to.

Extensions, as much as the poor free agent signings, will eventually do Jimbo in.

The Braves and Byrd are a real good fit. Unfortunately, I cannot see us plying away any one of their top 4 specs in that deal. And with the Braves, when it comes to pitchers, you mostly get sold on gold, when in actuality, you're getting silver or sometimes less. The team that I think would bite way deeper into their own system for getting Byrd would be Boston.

ReJo
07-08-2010, 03:40 PM
Well of course being smart with your money always helps. Marlon Byrd was a spectacular signing and has a super cheap deal for two more seasons. If you guys could trade him to a team like the Braves for a good prospect (top 80 or so), you'd be insane not to.

I wouldn't trade Byrd unless I was blown away with an offer. The Cubs really have no one who could step in and play cf for the next 2 years before Brett Jackson is ready. We would be taking a big hit defensively by putting Fukudome or Colvin in center and offensively if we put Fuld out there.
Byrd is a good player and is relatively cheap there is no reason to trade him right now. I'm sure teams would be lining up with decent prospects I'd rather dump high priced players and take lesser prospects.

Nymfan87
07-08-2010, 03:46 PM
I wouldn't trade Byrd unless I was blown away with an offer. The Cubs really have no one who could step in and play cf for the next 2 years before Brett Jackson is ready. We would be taking a big hit defensively by putting Fukudome or Colvin in center and offensively if we put Fuld out there.
Byrd is a good player and is relatively cheap there is no reason to trade him right now. I'm sure teams would be lining up with decent prospects I'd rather dump high priced players and take lesser prospects.

But if your team isn't going to be really competitive (serious playoff contender) until 2012 or 2013, why would you hold on to Byrd? He's almost 33 and his value will likely never be higher. If you guys parted with Byrd, Marmol, Lee, Fukudome, Lilly, and Silva, you could come away with 3-5 top 100 prospects and a few other interesting pieces. Then you can either trade the prospects later when you're ready to win "now" (whenever that will be) or they'd be on the major league roster and you could supplement the roster through free agency.

cowboydoc45
07-08-2010, 03:58 PM
But if your team isn't going to be really competitive (serious playoff contender) until 2012 or 2013, why would you hold on to Byrd? He's almost 33 and his value will likely never be higher. If you guys parted with Byrd, Marmol, Lee, Fukudome, Lilly, and Silva, you could come away with 3-5 top 100 prospects and a few other interesting pieces. Then you can either trade the prospects later when you're ready to win "now" (whenever that will be) or they'd be on the major league roster and you could supplement the roster through free agency.

I had never really thought about it like that, but you are actually right.

ReJo
07-08-2010, 04:08 PM
But if your team isn't going to be really competitive (serious playoff contender) until 2012 or 2013, why would you hold on to Byrd? He's almost 33 and his value will likely never be higher. If you guys parted with Byrd, Marmol, Lee, Fukudome, Lilly, and Silva, you could come away with 3-5 top 100 prospects and a few other interesting pieces. Then you can either trade the prospects later when you're ready to win "now" (whenever that will be) or they'd be on the major league roster and you could supplement the roster through free agency.

I'm not throwing away 2011 just because they have had a bad first half of 2010. This is a good team that should be competitive every year. The team doesn't need a big overhaul just some tweaking.

Nymfan87
07-08-2010, 04:10 PM
I'm not throwing away 2011 just because they have had a bad first half of 2010. This is a good team that should be competitive every year. The team doesn't need a big overhaul just some tweaking.

This is essentially the same team as last year, and they didn't do super well last year and aren't doing well this year so far. I just don't see how they could improve so drastically as to become a serious competitor next season.

ReJo
07-08-2010, 04:23 PM
This is essentially the same team as last year, and they didn't do super well last year and aren't doing well this year so far. I just don't see how they could improve so drastically as to become a serious competitor next season.

It wouldn't be that drastic.

Nymfan87
07-08-2010, 04:26 PM
It wouldn't be that drastic.

Right now the Cubs are a ~75 win team. It would take drastic changes to pick up 15 wins.

BDawk4Prez
07-08-2010, 04:36 PM
Right now the Cubs are a ~75 win team. It would take drastic changes to pick up 15 wins.

We are a Jose Macias away from winning 95.

ReJo
07-08-2010, 04:53 PM
Right now the Cubs are a ~75 win team. It would take drastic changes to pick up 15 wins.

Not really.
The Cubs have lost 19 games by 1 run this year. And there were plenty of other games they could have easily won with some timely hitting or pitching. Early on it was the bullpen then lately it has been the offense causing us to lose games
Had Aramis and Lee been even close to what they normally are the Cubs would be right there with the Cardinals and Reds right now.

BDawk4Prez
07-08-2010, 05:03 PM
Not really.
The Cubs have lost 19 games by 1 run this year. And there were plenty of other games they could have easily won with some timely hitting or pitching. Early on it was the bullpen then lately it has been the offense causing us to lose games
Had Aramis and Lee been even close to what they normally are the Cubs would be right there with the Cardinals and Reds right now.

And if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump his *** everytime it jumped.

Kirel
07-08-2010, 05:04 PM
Not really.
The Cubs have lost 19 games by 1 run this year. And there were plenty of other games they could have easily won with some timely hitting or pitching. Early on it was the bullpen then lately it has been the offense causing us to lose games
Had Aramis and Lee been even close to what they normally are the Cubs would be right there with the Cardinals and Reds right now.
And that's on the back of Soto, Silva, Colvin, and Byrd having seasons they aren't likely to repeat.

True talent of this team is probably no better than 80-83 wins. Yes Ramirez and Lee have been bad, but other people have been better than reasonable as well. It balances.

Adding 7 wins on is going to be difficult at this point, adding 7 wins while replacing teh 12 or so taht FA and regression is going to cost is going to be more difficult still. The chance of serious contentino next year is not good.

Doogolas
07-08-2010, 05:08 PM
This is essentially the same team as last year, and they didn't do super well last year and aren't doing well this year so far. I just don't see how they could improve so drastically as to become a serious competitor next season.

Actually I severely disagree. It really only takes two things:

Taking this EXACT team, here's what you have to have:
Aramis Ramirez being Aramis Ramirez again
Adam Dunn this offseason being signed to play 1B.

Those two things right there put this team at 90 win talent or so. I mean we won 83 last year with only 50% of Aramis and then below replacement players the rest of the time, Soriano, Bradley and Soto playing like complete ****. Soriano and Soto are back to form and Byrd replaced Bradley.

Logic would dictate we don't need that much since we have very good pitching as things stand.

Of course, Lilly is going to be gone this year (or offseason at the latest, potential Type A so we may have to really, really get a good offer to trade him) in which case Cashner is gonna have to step in and provide us with solid starting pitching next year. That's a question mark but he certainly has the ability to do it.

:shrug: This team isn't as far away from being good as people think. As 2008 showed, the difference between an amazing team and a merely good one is a couple guys playing better than they actually are, such as a Mark DeRosa or two.

Jilly Bohnson
07-08-2010, 05:15 PM
Actually I severely disagree. It really only takes two things:

Taking this EXACT team, here's what you have to have:
Aramis Ramirez being Aramis Ramirez again
Adam Dunn this offseason being signed to play 1B.

Those two things right there put this team at 90 win talent or so. I mean we won 83 last year with only 50% of Aramis and then below replacement players the rest of the time, Soriano, Bradley and Soto playing like complete ****. Soriano and Soto are back to form and Byrd replaced Bradley.

Logic would dictate we don't need that much since we have very good pitching as things stand.

Of course, Lilly is going to be gone this year (or offseason at the latest, potential Type A so we may have to really, really get a good offer to trade him) in which case Cashner is gonna have to step in and provide us with solid starting pitching next year. That's a question mark but he certainly has the ability to do it.

:shrug: This team isn't as far away from being good as people think. As 2008 showed, the difference between an amazing team and a merely good one is a couple guys playing better than they actually are, such as a Mark DeRosa or two.

I'ts not nearly that simple. This team is 9 games under .500, and their pythag backs that up. Even getting 8-10 wins out of 1b/3b instead of the replacement level they're at right now we're still only a .500ish team. The division is winnable next year because it's so crappy, but it's still going to take a lot of work and/or a lot of luck for this team to win 90 games next year.

Cub_StuckinSTL
07-08-2010, 05:18 PM
I say we hire Jilly to be the next GM

Jilly Bohnson
07-08-2010, 05:21 PM
I say we hire Jilly to be the next GM

The team would crash and burn but damn would it be fun to watch. Can you imagine Matt Kemp, Prince Fielder, Pedro Martinez, and all the other players I love on this team. I mean sure the farm would be barren and we'd have no depth but damn that team would be fun.

Doogolas
07-08-2010, 05:22 PM
I'ts not nearly that simple. This team is 9 games under .500, and their pythag backs that up. Even getting 8-10 wins out of 1b/3b instead of the replacement level they're at right now we're still only a .500ish team. The division is winnable next year because it's so crappy, but it's still going to take a lot of work and/or a lot of luck for this team to win 90 games next year.

I don't care what their pythag says. I really don't. Sometimes ****** years just happen. And when the 3 and 4 of your order suck all kinds of dick you're screwed. And the Cubs 3 and 4 have been doing that. And like I said, if Aramis is back, he's a 4 win player, not replacement, that brings it to about, what, an 85 win team? Then take replacement out of Lee and put in Adam Dunn and you're up to and 87 to 88 win team. All it takes is one surprise and boom 90 wins.

I wasn't being exact, but Aramis being back and Adam Dunn at 1B does make this team VERY close to a 90 win level team. Take into account the fact that our division sucks and a team with the talent level of 87 wins can certainly win 90.

The pythag can say what it wants, but the talent on the team says different. The talent of this team with Aramis and Dunn is near 90 wins. And I can show you in just a sec here.

BDawk4Prez
07-08-2010, 05:22 PM
The team would crash and burn but damn would it be fun to watch. Can you imagine Matt Kemp, Prince Fielder, Pedro Martinez, and all the other players I love on this team. I mean sure the farm would be barren and we'd have no depth but damn that team would be fun.

Fun, yes, but would there be scrap?

Jilly Bohnson
07-08-2010, 05:24 PM
I don't care what their pythag says. I really don't. Sometimes ****** years just happen. And when the 3 and 4 of your order suck all kinds of dick you're screwed. And the Cubs 3 and 4 have been doing that. And like I said, if Aramis is back, he's a 4 win player, not replacement, that brings it to about, what, an 85 win team? Then take replacement out of Lee and put in Adam Dunn and you're up to and 87 to 88 win team. All it takes is one surprise and boom 90 wins.

I wasn't being exact, but Aramis being back and Adam Dunn at 1B does make this team VERY close to a 90 win level team. Take into account the fact that our division sucks and a team with the talent level of 87 wins can certainly win 90.

You're assuming this is a .500 team with Lee and Ramirez playing how they are now, and it's clearly not. And it'll be even less of one next year considering most of the regulars, particularly on the position player side, are at or over 30.

Jilly Bohnson
07-08-2010, 05:25 PM
Fun, yes, but would there be scrap?

Nope. It'd be all homeruns, web gems, and strikeouts.

Doogolas
07-08-2010, 05:31 PM
So let's say we have Dunn at 1B right now and regular Aramis at 3B. So like 2 wins and 2.5 wins this year instead of the crap we've had:

Our hitters would have the same WAR as the Cardinals at 13.9 putting us at 8th in the MLB and 3rd in the NL. Our pitchers currently rank at 3rd in the MLB right now at 11.1 so that's 25 total.

Reds: 23.9WAR
Cards: 22.3WAR
Giants: 22.6WAR
Rockies: 23.9WAR

That puts us at the highest WAR of any team in the National League.

**** pythag, I don't care about it. I don't care about our record right now. We're a much better team than our record says. This team is really talented, they've just had **** loads of awful luck with the wrong people getting hits at the wrong time and the wrong people giving up runs at the wrong time. Along with two of our best hitters having the worst year of their respective careers by a long shot.

In fact, on that note, RIGHT now we are only about two wins worse than the Cardinals this year. This team is heavily underperforming, regardless of what their pythag may indicate.

Jilly Bohnson
07-08-2010, 05:41 PM
So let's say we have Dunn at 1B right now and regular Aramis at 3B. So like 2 wins and 2.5 wins this year instead of the crap we've had:

Our hitters would have the same WAR as the Cardinals at 13.9 putting us at 8th in the MLB and 3rd in the NL. Our pitchers currently rank at 3rd in the MLB right now at 11.1 so that's 25 total.

Reds: 23.9WAR
Cards: 22.3WAR
Giants: 22.6WAR
Rockies: 23.9WAR

That puts us at the highest WAR of any team in the National League.

**** pythag, I don't care about it. I don't care about our record right now. We're a much better team than our record says. This team is really talented, they've just had **** loads of awful luck with the wrong people getting hits at the wrong time and the wrong people giving up runs at the wrong time. Along with two of our best hitters having the worst year of their respective careers by a long shot.

Well if you want to go with purely WAR, even though that's not a good idea, we're still not a 90ish win team next year with this crop. Byrd isn't a 6 win centerfielder, Soriano probably won't be a 5 win left fielder, Theriot probably continues or at least maintains his decline, Fukudome probably declines, Dempster, Silva, and Lilly will probably all be worse. The bullpen still won't be great. It's a messy situation if you just leave it as is but replace Lee with Dunn. That's how you end up like the Astros.

Cub_StuckinSTL
07-08-2010, 05:44 PM
Doog come on.....
You're assuming that all of our other players are still playing above their average and Aramis is back to normal and Dunn? Thats dream land of course it would be good

Doogolas
07-08-2010, 05:47 PM
Well if you want to go with purely WAR, even though that's not a good idea, we're still not a 90ish win team next year with this crop. Byrd isn't a 6 win centerfielder, Soriano probably won't be a 5 win left fielder, Theriot probably continues or at least maintains his decline, Fukudome probably declines, Dempster, Silva, and Lilly will probably all be worse. The bullpen still won't be great. It's a messy situation if you just leave it as is but replace Lee with Dunn. That's how you end up like the Astros.

I'm aware that things move around. But WAR tells me more about this team relative to the teams they're up against than does Pythag. The Cubs as a team, right now as it stands, are a slightly better than .500 talent team. Give them Dunn and regular Aramis and this team is better than that. By how much obviously depends on how other people perform. If Soriano falls off another cliff then sure. Or if Soto regresses for some reason, sure. But Castro could also perform better, Theriot could be replaced by somebody that's league average, Zambrano could come back and be a 3.80ERA type guy again.

For as many things that can go wrong, we have just as many that can go right. That's why at the start of the year I said we'll win 75 games or we'll win 90 games. Because this team is like that. Hell, most baseball teams are. But talentwise this team just needs a couple tweaks to potentially win 90 or so games.

As to Silva, I'm more confident in him than most. He's changed his entire approach to pitching, if he does the same next year i see no reason he can't have another very good season.

Doogolas
07-08-2010, 05:50 PM
Doog come on.....
You're assuming that all of our other players are still playing above their average and Aramis is back to normal and Dunn? Thats dream land of course it would be good

No, I'm not, I'm assuming that for each guy that regresses, another guy progresses. Like Castro, he'll be in his second year and could easily have his first all star season. Or if Theriot is replaced by someone who is actually a decent 2B like, I dunno, that Fonty/Baker platoon that was doing just fine earlier this year, that it all evens out. You cant' make ANY predictions otherwise. You have to go off of what you have to work with. I could go through and do regressions/progressions for each guy on the roster and I'd probably come out with roughly the same number because that's generally how it works with teams. Just usually not to the extreme the Cubs have been dealing with the last two years where Soto and Soriano sucked last year, came back this year and then Lee and Ramirez decided to suck even worse than those two did last year.

If you don't assume relative constants on the whole then you can't really predict anything. I mean, the Reds are going to have regression in places as well. But I can't go through the whole league and point out every single thing to find where our talent fairs compared to those around us. I can just go off what I actually physically have right now. The Cubs have a lot of talent on their roster, if they all perform to their ability, and I do not mean their peak, I mean their 85 to 90% or so, the general year to year performance of players, this team is well above how they've performed this season.

BDawk4Prez
07-08-2010, 06:03 PM
Nope. It'd be all homeruns, web gems, and strikeouts.

A team without scrap is a team I can't support.

Jilly Bohnson
07-08-2010, 06:19 PM
I'm aware that things move around. But WAR tells me more about this team relative to the teams they're up against than does Pythag. The Cubs as a team, right now as it stands, are a slightly better than .500 talent team. Give them Dunn and regular Aramis and this team is better than that. By how much obviously depends on how other people perform. If Soriano falls off another cliff then sure. Or if Soto regresses for some reason, sure. But Castro could also perform better, Theriot could be replaced by somebody that's league average, Zambrano could come back and be a 3.80ERA type guy again.

For as many things that can go wrong, we have just as many that can go right. That's why at the start of the year I said we'll win 75 games or we'll win 90 games. Because this team is like that. Hell, most baseball teams are. But talentwise this team just needs a couple tweaks to potentially win 90 or so games.

As to Silva, I'm more confident in him than most. He's changed his entire approach to pitching, if he does the same next year i see no reason he can't have another very good season.

Are you sure about that? Because pythagorean wins correlate higher to real wins than WAR does. And even if WAR is better, does it tell us so much more that you can latch purely onto WAR and disregard pythag? Because the fact is that we've been outscored by nearly 40 runs this year. This is the same trap that Mariners fans fell into this winter and it blew up in their faces hardcore. There's a lot of things that WAR doesn't count or doesn't count well.

Saying "WAR thinks we're fine so we're fine" is quite frankly putting your head in the sand. This team is 9 games under .500, and they've played like it. Are they more talented then that? Yeah, and I'd like to think so, at least by a few games. But this team is old and getting older. Soto, Colvin, and Castro are the only starting position players under 30. And our pitching is getting a little old too. For every thing that can go right next year there's a number of other things that can go wrong, that's jsut the nature of having an old team that lacks elite talent. Most of the players being old means that they're probably going to decline faster than the young guys are going to improve. It also raises the likelihood of injury and of guys falling off the cliff.

This team need drastic changes or experimental horseshoe to *** surgery on many of the players to win next year.

Doogolas
07-08-2010, 06:25 PM
Are you sure about that? Because pythagorean wins correlate higher to real wins than WAR does. And even if WAR is better, does it tell us so much more that you can latch purely onto WAR and disregard pythag? Because the fact is that we've been outscored by nearly 40 runs this year. This is the same trap that Mariners fans fell into this winter and it blew up in their faces hardcore. There's a lot of things that WAR doesn't count or doesn't count well.

Saying "WAR thinks we're fine so we're fine" is quite frankly putting your head in the sand. This team is 9 games under .500, and they've played like it. Are they more talented then that? Yeah, and I'd like to think so, at least by a few games. But this team is old and getting older. Soto, Colvin, and Castro are the only starting position players under 30. And our pitching is getting a little old too. For every thing that can go right next year there's a number of other things that can go wrong, that's jsut the nature of having an old team that lacks elite talent. Most of the players being old means that they're probably going to decline faster than the young guys are going to improve. It also raises the likelihood of injury and of guys falling off the cliff.

This team need drastic changes or experimental horseshoe to *** surgery on many of the players to win next year.

I know it correlates better. But only to THAT season. It does NOTHING for predicting the future at all. I would bet WAR is a FAR better predictor of the future than Pythag is. Of course Pythag is going to correlate better to wins in a specific year than WAR is, you can have a lot of talent with ****** timing and score fewer runs than you actually should be and vise versa. But for predictions, WAR is a far, far better indicator of what you have and what you're probably going to get out of a team.

This team has enough talent with an addition and a tiny bit of luck to win 90 next year. In large part due to our ****** division. But this team is nowhere near a -9 team. And, if Aramis is back, as it would appear since his return, I'm betting they finish closer to 5 games under .500 than 9 games under .500.

And if we're talking compete for the next four or five years. Yeah, there need to be some major, major changes. But JUST for next year, this team with the addition of Dunn can compete. Then you make another move the year after that, say Byrd is gone and Jackson steps in and Jay Jackson, Carpenter, Dolis or somebody steps into one of the rotation spots. Or hell, even Shark if he gets his **** together somehow. But for JUST next year, I don't think we need to overhaul anything.

Jilly Bohnson
07-08-2010, 06:36 PM
I know it correlates better. But only to THAT season. It does NOTHING for predicting the future at all. I would bet WAR is a FAR better predictor of the future than Pythag is. Of course Pythag is going to correlate better to wins in a specific year than WAR is, you can have a lot of talent with ****** timing and score fewer runs than you actually should be and vise versa. But for predictions, WAR is a far, far better indicator of what you have and what you're probably going to get out of a team.

This team has enough talent with an addition and a tiny bit of luck to win 90 next year. In large part due to our ****** division. But this team is nowhere near a -9 team. And, if Aramis is back, as it would appear since his return, I'm betting they finish closer to 5 games under .500 than 9 games under .500.

And if we're talking compete for the next four or five years. Yeah, there need to be some major, major changes. But JUST for next year, this team with the addition of Dunn can compete. Then you make another move the year after that, say Byrd is gone and Jackson steps in and Jay Jackson, Carpenter, Dolis or somebody steps into one of the rotation spots. Or hell, even Shark if he gets his **** together somehow.

The team has hit roughly the same with RISP and runners on as normal, so I don't know you can just point to crazy bad luck. And their team ERA is the same as their team FIP, so again, how is it crazy bad luck? The team wOBA ranks 23rd in the league, and the team rank in runs is 26th(and only 7 runs behind 23rd). So again, where's all this bad luck?

Doogolas
07-08-2010, 07:20 PM
The team has hit roughly the same with RISP and runners on as normal, so I don't know you can just point to crazy bad luck. And their team ERA is the same as their team FIP, so again, how is it crazy bad luck? The team wOBA ranks 23rd in the league, and the team rank in runs is 26th(and only 7 runs behind 23rd). So again, where's all this bad luck?

And the team is 5th in xFIP, 3nd in WAR among pitchers. So... that should all amount to close to a .500 team. We are also 11-22 in one run games. That right there is ****** luck, even bad teams, the ****ing Pirates are 14-12 in one run games. One run games tend to be VERY close to 50% wins and 50% losses over the course of a season for most teams. That is ****** luck, we should have a good 4 to 6 wins just right there.

Then there's again, the fact that our general big inning capabilities have been HUGELY hurt by the black holes at 3 and 4 this year. You make those .900OPS Aramis and .900OPS Dunn and this team scores a shitload more runs.

Just because they haven't performed as well as they should be doesn't mean they can't. Which is the difference between using WAR and Pythag. WAR is a better predictor of the future than Pythag is because it tells you the actual talent that is playing on the field, not what they've been able to do all together. And the actual talent this team possesses is near .500 or so.

Hell, back in 2007 we had a pythag of one over .500 on June 2nd with a 239RS to 233RA. Over the course of the rest of the year we had a differential of 513RS to 457RA. But our actual performance didn't change much, if you calculate our wOBA through June 2nd it's the same .328 it was the rest of the year and our FIP was actually worse in the 2nd half, because our FIP up to 6/02 was 4.26 and by the end of the year it was up to 4.28.

But we performed better because our talent was actually there. So we played like the team we were instead of the facade of mediocrity (that with piss luck looked like ***).

This team is not a team capable of playing 7 or 8 over .500. They're a .500 type team that is playing like a ****** team. But going forward, I think we're more likely to finish 5 under .500 this year than 9. :shrug: Maybe I'm a little optimistic. But I don't think it takes much for this team to compete next year.

Jilly Bohnson
07-08-2010, 08:59 PM
And the team is 5th in xFIP, 3nd in WAR among pitchers. So... that should all amount to close to a .500 team. We are also 11-22 in one run games. That right there is ****** luck, even bad teams, the ****ing Pirates are 14-12 in one run games. One run games tend to be VERY close to 50% wins and 50% losses over the course of a season for most teams. That is ****** luck, we should have a good 4 to 6 wins just right there.

Then there's again, the fact that our general big inning capabilities have been HUGELY hurt by the black holes at 3 and 4 this year. You make those .900OPS Aramis and .900OPS Dunn and this team scores a shitload more runs.

Just because they haven't performed as well as they should be doesn't mean they can't. Which is the difference between using WAR and Pythag. WAR is a better predictor of the future than Pythag is because it tells you the actual talent that is playing on the field, not what they've been able to do all together. And the actual talent this team possesses is near .500 or so.

Hell, back in 2007 we had a pythag of one over .500 on June 2nd with a 239RS to 233RA. Over the course of the rest of the year we had a differential of 513RS to 457RA. But our actual performance didn't change much, if you calculate our wOBA through June 2nd it's the same .328 it was the rest of the year and our FIP was actually worse in the 2nd half, because our FIP up to 6/02 was 4.26 and by the end of the year it was up to 4.28.

But we performed better because our talent was actually there. So we played like the team we were instead of the facade of mediocrity (that with piss luck looked like ***).

This team is not a team capable of playing 7 or 8 over .500. They're a .500 type team that is playing like a ****** team. But going forward, I think we're more likely to finish 5 under .500 this year than 9. :shrug: Maybe I'm a little optimistic. But I don't think it takes much for this team to compete next year.

To the first bold part: Didn't you have a rant like a month ago about how you "don't give a ****" about xFIP?

To the second: That's taken into account in Pythagorean record.

And as for projecting how we'll play going forward, WAR doesn't tell you that either. WAR tells you what they've done as well. Something that tells you how you can figure out what players do going forward are projection systems, almost all of which had us at or around .500 coming into the year, and that was with Lee and Ramirez being nearly at their normal talent level. Them playing that poorly making us a team well under .500 makes sense. I'm sorry but you're just not bringing anything to this argument except what your opinion is of the team's true talent level.

Doogolas
07-08-2010, 09:32 PM
Oh yeah, I don't like it at all for pitchers. It's an OK team stat. And it's one I don't like. But I looked for like an hour for team tRA and couldn't fine it.

As to the argument, I can't even do this right now. LeBron is going to ****ing Miami. The NBA is worthless.

I think this is a .500 team. You don't have to. We'll agree to disagree and see as the year goes on and into next year.

Jilly Bohnson
07-08-2010, 10:08 PM
Oh yeah, I don't like it at all for pitchers. It's an OK team stat. And it's one I don't like. But I looked for like an hour for team tRA and couldn't fine it.

As to the argument, I can't even do this right now. LeBron is going to ****ing Miami. The NBA is worthless.

I think this is a .500 team. You don't have to. We'll agree to disagree and see as the year goes on and into next year.

xFIP actually usually means more over small samples, if anything you should be the other way around...

Doogolas
07-08-2010, 10:22 PM
xFIP actually usually means more over small samples, if anything you should be the other way around...

No, I think it means less for specific people because I think some players will just never measure into it properly. It simply cannot measure certain types of pitchers. And there are far too many types. But if you take a whole bunch of them an combine them it's bland enough that it's a decent indicator of things.

socherball
07-08-2010, 10:30 PM
As much as seeing Jayson Werth in Cubbie blue would be, it's not likely to happen.

I've talked to several people who went to high school with him (I'm from Springfield, myself) and they all say that they'd be really surprised to see him end up with the Cubs.

He grew up a die hard Cardinals fan, from what I understand, and the Cubs just aren't on his radar.

I want no part of Jayson Werth. Because he just started living up to his potential recently, I don't think people realize that at the start of next season he will be almost 32 years old. That has bad contract written all over it.

Jilly Bohnson
07-08-2010, 10:33 PM
No, I think it means less for specific people because I think some players will just never measure into it properly. It simply cannot measure certain types of pitchers. And there are far too many types. But if you take a whole bunch of them an combine them it's bland enough that it's a decent indicator of things.

What xFIP does is it normalizes homerun rate to the average. Over a small sample this makes sense since funny things can happen, just look at Kevin Gregg. Over a large sample, like on the team level or a guy's numbers over several seasons, it means less because not everyone's going to have the same HR/FB numbers, and over a large sample it becomes more likely that it's skill and not luck. IMO, you dismissing it for individuals and using it for teams is flying in the face of what makes it useful.

Doogolas
07-08-2010, 10:49 PM
What xFIP does is it normalizes homerun rate to the average. Over a small sample this makes sense since funny things can happen, just look at Kevin Gregg. Over a large sample, like on the team level or a guy's numbers over several seasons, it means less because not everyone's going to have the same HR/FB numbers, and over a large sample it becomes more likely that it's skill and not luck. IMO, you dismissing it for individuals and using it for teams is flying in the face of what makes it useful.

I'm actually well aware of what it does. :laugh2: But it doesn't work for FAR too many players. People like Marmol, Zambrano, among others, I don't feel like looking it up right now, sorry, there's just a lot going on and I'm not in the mood to do it.

I don't like it for individuals. But as a team stat I don't think it's that bad. Again, we can agree to disagree. There's no sense arguing about it.

Kirel
07-08-2010, 10:56 PM
I'm actually well aware of what it does. :laugh2: But it doesn't work for FAR too many players. People like Marmol, Zambrano, among others, I don't feel like looking it up right now, sorry, there's just a lot going on and I'm not in the mood to do it.

I don't like it for individuals. But as a team stat I don't think it's that bad. Again, we can agree to disagree. There's no sense arguing about it.
The point is that for a team stat it approaches pointless. xFIP exists only to combat small sample sizes. As a team stat it is essentially FIP. As a league stat it *IS* FIP

Doogolas
07-08-2010, 11:06 PM
The point is that for a team stat it approaches pointless. xFIP exists only to combat small sample sizes. As a team stat it is essentially FIP. As a league stat it *IS* FIP

Well, I'm really barely a fan of FIP too. But I can't find team stats on tRA. So I have to live with it. And I still disagree, I don't think it's any more or less pointless in large or small samples. And I still think this team can win 90 with Ramirez being back and Dunn at 1B next year. :shrug:

Kirel
07-08-2010, 11:12 PM
Well, I'm really barely a fan of FIP too. But I can't find team stats on tRA. So I have to live with it. And I still disagree, I don't think it's any more or less pointless in large or small samples. And I still think this team can win 90 with Ramirez being back and Dunn at 1B next year. :shrug:
Well, given that it normalizes to average, and as sample sizes go up they approach average, its pretty clear that at some point the change is going to be zero and that the change as the sample size goes up should be smaller.

Kirel
07-09-2010, 07:52 AM
Well, I'm really barely a fan of FIP too. But I can't find team stats on tRA. So I have to live with it. And I still disagree, I don't think it's any more or less pointless in large or small samples. And I still think this team can win 90 with Ramirez being back and Dunn at 1B next year. :shrug:
Theoretically the team could win 90, but to do so the following would have to happen

1) Andrew Cashner has to be a 2.5 win starter
2) Carlos Silva has to be a 2.5 win starter
3) Ryan Dempster has to be a 2.5 win starter
4) Randy Wells has to be a 2.5 win starter
5) At least two of those starters need to approach 4 wins.
6) Marlon Byrd cannot regress signfiicantly
7) Soto cannot regress significantly
8) Soriano cannot regress signfiicantly
9) Colvin must be the real deal
10) Castro must improve

I do not see a situation where adding Dunn alone wins 90 games, without remarkable luck. The team has too many flaws and is riding possibly the widest set of recent career years I can think of in recent Cubs history to a sub-.500 season. Dunn offsets the loss of Lee and a little bit of talent regression, but probably only adds about a win to the teams true talent level. I'd put that at 83 wins at best right now.

To be a champion level team the Cubs need to find a true ace and fix 2B in addition to adding a Dunn.

windycityD
07-09-2010, 11:20 AM
Theoretically the team could win 90, but to do so the following would have to happen

1) Andrew Cashner has to be a 2.5 win starter
2) Carlos Silva has to be a 2.5 win starter
3) Ryan Dempster has to be a 2.5 win starter
4) Randy Wells has to be a 2.5 win starter
5) At least two of those starters need to approach 4 wins.
6) Marlon Byrd cannot regress signfiicantly
7) Soto cannot regress significantly
8) Soriano cannot regress signfiicantly
9) Colvin must be the real deal
10) Castro must improve

I do not see a situation where adding Dunn alone wins 90 games, without remarkable luck. The team has too many flaws and is riding possibly the widest set of recent career years I can think of in recent Cubs history to a sub-.500 season. Dunn offsets the loss of Lee and a little bit of talent regression, but probably only adds about a win to the teams true talent level. I'd put that at 83 wins at best right now.

To be a champion level team the Cubs need to find a true ace and fix 2B in addition to adding a Dunn.

The only #1 hitting the market this winter is Cliff Lee. We wont have that kind of money in relation to other needs.

IMHO, the only way to make some payroll room for adding what would be a giant FA contract w/ Dunn, plus adding needed future pieces (ex good 1b spec, upside lefty starter spec) in the process, would be to flip Byrd and Silva. I'm not on the "Ricketts will toss around more money" train, at all.

As far as 2b, if Uggla becomes a target, I'm assuming Fla will want a spec arm and a bat or a swap of Wells for Uggla if we're talking a deal.

I agree with your 83 wins completely. A large part of that is that even if we add, we'll inevitably have to subtract, one way or another, from that list of 10. In the process, AS, A Ram, Soto, Colvin, Dempster, Cashner, and Gorzo would all have to have stellar years in 2011 to help try & get us to 90 wins. Tall order.

Mell413
07-09-2010, 11:23 AM
I'm not saying we will or won't compete next year, but we do have pitching and that should keep us in games. The Padres and White Sox are proving you can win with pitching and mediocre to bad offenses. It's not how I would build a team ideally, but why can't the same thing happen to us?

It depends on what we do at the deadline and in the off-season. Obviously you can't predict future performance, but with Aramis starting to come around it appears the only hole we have offensively is at first. The ability to win may hinge on what we do to fill that spot. This division is winnable so I think it's somewhat foolish to dismiss next year entirely. A lot depends on what happens in the coming weeks and the off-season. With the way this season has gone and how the Cubs seem to be second fiddle to other teams in Chicago I can see Ricketts signing someone like Dunn or Crawford to make a splash and to win some fans over.

Kirel
07-09-2010, 11:25 AM
The only #1 hitting the market this winter is Cliff Lee. We wont have that kind of money in relation to other needs.

IMHO, the only way to make some payroll room for adding what would be a giant FA contract w/ Dunn, plus adding needed future pieces (ex good 1b spec, upside lefty starter spec) in the process, would be to flip Byrd and Silva. I'm not on the "Ricketts will toss around more money" train, at all.

As far as 2b, if Uggla becomes a target, I'm assuming Fla will want a spec arm and a bat or a swap of Wells for Uggla if we're talking a deal.

I agree with your 83 wins completely. A large part of that is that even if we add, we'll inevitably have to subtract, one way or another, from that list of 10. In the process, AS, A Ram, Soto, Colvin, Dempster, Cashner, and Gorzo would all have to have stellar years in 2011 to help try & get us to 90 wins. Tall order.
Wells for Uggla is downright stupid, it almost certainly makes the team worse in both the short and long runs.

I'm not sure Uggla and Dunn are a great pair for the team though.

Moving Byrd and Silva may acquire interesting prospects, but trading them to add Dunn is essentially a null move. 1B improves, rotation and outfield regress. The team is not a winner then.

That said, Dunn probaly does not require moving those two. Dropping Lee and Lilly's salaries alone is probably enough to pay for Dunn, arbitration raises, and to still lower payroll a bit.

Kirel
07-09-2010, 11:40 AM
I'm not saying we will or won't compete next year, but we do have pitching and that should keep us in games. The Padres and White Sox are proving you can win with pitching and mediocre to bad offenses. It's not how I would build a team ideally, but why can't the same thing happen to us?

It depends on what we do at the deadline and in the off-season. Obviously you can't predict future performance, but with Aramis starting to come around it appears the only hole we have offensively is at first. The ability to win may hinge on what we do to fill that spot. This division is winnable so I think it's somewhat foolish to dismiss next year entirely. A lot depends on what happens in the coming weeks and the off-season. With the way this season has gone and how the Cubs seem to be second fiddle to other teams in Chicago I can see Ricketts signing someone like Dunn or Crawford to make a splash and to win some fans over.
The Padres offense isn't nearly so bad as you make it out to be.They don't have a lot of star power but they are consistent from top to bottom. The Cubs issue is lack of depth and smoe disappointing seasons.

It amuses me, but the Cubs pitchers have been downright *AWFUL* with the bats. To this point the starting 5 of Dempster, Lilly, Wells, Zambrano, and Silva has been worth -1.8 WAR offensively.

Mell413
07-09-2010, 11:58 AM
The Padres offense isn't nearly so bad as you make it out to be.They don't have a lot of star power but they are consistent from top to bottom. The Cubs issue is lack of depth and smoe disappointing seasons.

It amuses me, but the Cubs pitchers have been downright *AWFUL* with the bats. To this point the starting 5 of Dempster, Lilly, Wells, Zambrano, and Silva has been worth -1.8 WAR offensively.

They are 22nd in runs scored and 25th in OBP. I'll agree with you on the disappointing seasons mainly from Lee and Ramirez, which I think really brought down the offense. We have had guys that have performed mainly our OF where we rank 3rd in wOBA so you would think we would have scored more runs to this point.

How do you determine the pitchers value with the bat according to WAR?

Kirel
07-09-2010, 12:48 PM
They are 22nd in runs scored and 25th in OBP. I'll agree with you on the disappointing seasons mainly from Lee and Ramirez, which I think really brought down the offense. We have had guys that have performed mainly our OF where we rank 3rd in wOBA so you would think we would have scored more runs to this point.

How do you determine the pitchers value with the bat according to WAR?
The same way as a batters value.

And you have to remember hte Padres play in a substantial pitchers park. Compariing raw runs scored and OBP isn't that useful.

windycityD
07-09-2010, 03:06 PM
Wells for Uggla is downright stupid, it almost certainly makes the team worse in both the short and long runs.

I'm not sure Uggla and Dunn are a great pair for the team though.

Moving Byrd and Silva may acquire interesting prospects, but trading them to add Dunn is essentially a null move. 1B improves, rotation and outfield regress. The team is not a winner then.

That said, Dunn probaly does not require moving those two. Dropping Lee and Lilly's salaries alone is probably enough to pay for Dunn, arbitration raises, and to still lower payroll a bit.

First off, I'm not in favor of adding Dunn or Uggla. I'd ideally want Cliff Lee to shore up the #1 spot in the rotation and do fair market, 1-2 year vet signings for 1b and/ or 2b (an ex you've suggested for 1b, Branyan or Berkman). Dunn's contract would be ridiculous and Uggla could still cost plenty in trade, even if it's not Wells. They would be all over & wanting guys like Jackson, Parker, or even Archer.

Byrd and Silva, packaged together to Atlanta, could be a very interesting trade scenario in my mind.

Doogolas
07-09-2010, 04:37 PM
:shrug: I don't think we need all that Kirel. We've talked about this though, so you know what I think needs to happen. Certainly some luck is involved, but that goes for most teams not named the Yankees and Boston.

Kirel
07-09-2010, 11:12 PM
First off, I'm not in favor of adding Dunn or Uggla. I'd ideally want Cliff Lee to shore up the #1 spot in the rotation and do fair market, 1-2 year vet signings for 1b and/ or 2b (an ex you've suggested for 1b, Branyan or Berkman). Dunn's contract would be ridiculous and Uggla could still cost plenty in trade, even if it's not Wells. They would be all over & wanting guys like Jackson, Parker, or even Archer.

Byrd and Silva, packaged together to Atlanta, could be a very interesting trade scenario in my mind.
Frankly, Lee's contract is going to make Dunns look brilliant. He's 31 and a pitcher...almost no way he's going to ultimatly live up to what he'll get. I do not want Cliff Lee a a free agent.

patsspurscubs
07-09-2010, 11:25 PM
I think it depends. It depends on if Vitters pans out. If Vitters pans out then I say 2012, but if he doesn't then I think it will be 2014 or later before the Cubs seriously contend again. If I were the Cubs I would tank the rest of this season and all of the next one to put myself in the best position to win for years to come.

Jilly Bohnson
07-10-2010, 02:02 AM
Frankly, Lee's contract is going to make Dunns look brilliant. He's 31 and a pitcher...almost no way he's going to ultimatly live up to what he'll get. I do not want Cliff Lee a a free agent.

I'm really curious what Lee ends up making. Too old to get Sabathia money, too good to get Burnett/Lackey money. Something like 5/100 maybe?

Totally agree with you though. I'd be leery of giving huge money to a Verlander or a King Felix who is young and dominant, giving it to an over 30 finesse pitcher is just asking for trouble.

Doogolas
07-10-2010, 02:38 AM
Yeah, I imagine Dunn will get something like 3 years $45 million. Which would be an absolutely stellar contact. Especially since his skill type (Being a behemoth) ages extremely well.

Jilly Bohnson
07-10-2010, 02:41 AM
Yeah, I imagine Dunn will get something like 3 years $45 million. Which would be an absolutely stellar contact. Especially since his skill (Being a behemoth) type ages extremely well.

That's the opposite of true. Unathletic 3 true outcomes guys generally age the worst.

Doogolas
07-10-2010, 03:15 AM
That's the opposite of true. Unathletic 3 true outcomes guys generally age the worst.

Not at all. The atheletic ones usually do, because they don't generate their power from just being really big. And so as they get older and athleticism goes they start to suck. There are very few example of guys like Dunn. Jim Thome is one and he's still kicking some *** right now. Um... Let me think... Honestly, it's hard to say. Cause Dunn is the biggest baseball player I've ever seen. Delgado is pretty big. And only had one really bad year from 96 to 09.

Jilly Bohnson
07-10-2010, 01:52 PM
Not at all. The atheletic ones usually do, because they don't generate their power from just being really big. And so as they get older and athleticism goes they start to suck. There are very few example of guys like Dunn. Jim Thome is one and he's still kicking some *** right now. Um... Let me think... Honestly, it's hard to say. Cause Dunn is the biggest baseball player I've ever seen. Delgado is pretty big. And only had one really bad year from 96 to 09.

Exception, not the rule. Three true outcomes guys age very badly, because A) They provide little to no value on defense, so if/when their bat goes they become useless and B) They make such little contact that once their bat slows down a little bit their two skills, hitting homers and taking lots of walks, start to erode quickly. The list of guys like that who have flamed out fast and hard is damn long. Richie Sexson comes to mind immediately. Athletic guys are usually the ones that age better, because as they get older and lose a step or two, they bulk up a bit and add a little more power/patience to their profile.

windycityD
07-10-2010, 06:34 PM
Yeah, I imagine Dunn will get something like 3 years $45 million. Which would be an absolutely stellar contact. Especially since his skill type (Being a behemoth) ages extremely well.

IF it is three years, considering he's making 12 mil now, conservatively, I see it as 15, 16, and 18. That's 49 mil. Of course, any number of teams could offer a player or club option for a 4th year to leverage to get him, which would make signing him basically Soriano II. That's a bad contract in the NL and would be a bad one for us. If an AL club wants him, then those years and numbers might add up since he could DH.

If we sign Dunn, we are done in terms of adding much else offensively, in 2011 and possibly 2012. He'd also diminish funds for addressing the rotation should we see the departure of both Lilly and Zambrano or Silva.

Doogolas
07-10-2010, 06:43 PM
Exception, not the rule. Three true outcomes guys age very badly, because A) They provide little to no value on defense, so if/when their bat goes they become useless and B) They make such little contact that once their bat slows down a little bit their two skills, hitting homers and taking lots of walks, start to erode quickly. The list of guys like that who have flamed out fast and hard is damn long. Richie Sexson comes to mind immediately. Athletic guys are usually the ones that age better, because as they get older and lose a step or two, they bulk up a bit and add a little more power/patience to their profile.

I disagree though, Richie Sexson still wasn't a BIG guy, he was just tall as hell. He was also pretty athletic. The big guys usually stay good until they're 35-36 year's old regularly. I will give you this: Athletic guys have a better shot at staying good until they're 40 years old, but I think they get worse around age 33 to 35 more often than just big guys do.

Seriously though, I can't think of any player as big as Dunn, he's like 6'7" and gotta be close to 300lbs. So we'll have to see what happens to him.

EDIT: Oh, David Ortiz is a big dude. He's 35 right now and still going strong. 09 was bad but 08 was good and he's been very good again this year as well.

semperfi
07-10-2010, 07:19 PM
I disagree though, Richie Sexson still wasn't a BIG guy, he was just tall as hell. He was also pretty athletic. The big guys usually stay good until they're 35-36 year's old regularly. I will give you this: Athletic guys have a better shot at staying good until they're 40 years old, but I think they get worse around age 33 to 35 more often than just big guys do.

Seriously though, I can't think of any player as big as Dunn, he's like 6'7" and gotta be close to 300lbs. So we'll have to see what happens to him.

EDIT: Oh, David Ortiz is a big dude. He's 35 right now and still going strong. 09 was bad but 08 was good and he's been very good again this year as well.

I think one of the interesting things we're going to see is how the lack of Steroids will affect players. The older players who took em and the younger guys who haven't..

jp611
07-11-2010, 09:33 AM
Cubs have some good youngsters to build around and I'm confident they will be able to contend next season because of the weak division, but after we get some guys off the books and can sign some veterans to mix in i would say 2012 would be the year they could really take off

windycityD
07-11-2010, 12:11 PM
Cubs have some good youngsters to build around and I'm confident they will be able to contend next season because of the weak division, but after we get some guys off the books and can sign some veterans to mix in i would say 2012 would be the year they could really take off

Cincy is in an enviable position going into 2011. They can get Arroyo and especially Harang off the books (both have club options). If Volquez bounces back and they add Chapman to the rotation, they would have the best young rotation in the game. The Reds are on the doorstep of some serious domination in the Central. That said, I wont be surprised if they fade in August and Sept and the Cards win a close division race. In the big picture, I actually think that would bode even better for them. Dusty is a so so manager in his last year and there are several options for them with that group of players to up the ante in terms of a new manager.

In St. Louis, it's all going to come down to Pujols. If they extend him next season, they will have fallen into the same trap we did with Soriano in taking on an albatross of a contract that would go well into the decline years. Carpenter would be gone after 2011. Their window is this season. My bets are on the Reds as of 2011.

The reason why I think we could be very good come 2012 is that we'll have more of our own youth to bring along and develop, assuming Hendry is not allowed to toss around more money. We may not be better than Cincy, but we sure as hell could be better than St. Louis by then.

pollutedprophet
07-11-2010, 02:42 PM
Does Dunn have any significant injury history? I would love to have him on this team as people have been noting

slikrick7
07-11-2010, 03:17 PM
guys alot of you are kinda skimming my thought process and id like everyones respectful opinion. Thankfully this era of cubs baseball is ovedr now why i think it was bad is cuz we almost had a new team or players every year now too me itd make sense to go the diff route and draft and grow young players like what most are aying but i think we should cut major spending on a free agent who will come here and usually suck like what some people have mentioned (no offense) ideas?

Jilly Bohnson
07-11-2010, 03:21 PM
I disagree though, Richie Sexson still wasn't a BIG guy, he was just tall as hell. He was also pretty athletic. The big guys usually stay good until they're 35-36 year's old regularly. I will give you this: Athletic guys have a better shot at staying good until they're 40 years old, but I think they get worse around age 33 to 35 more often than just big guys do.

Seriously though, I can't think of any player as big as Dunn, he's like 6'7" and gotta be close to 300lbs. So we'll have to see what happens to him.

EDIT: Oh, David Ortiz is a big dude. He's 35 right now and still going strong. 09 was bad but 08 was good and he's been very good again this year as well.

I'm sorry, I don't want to be mean, but this is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read.

Darwinist
07-11-2010, 04:28 PM
guys alot of you are kinda skimming my thought process and id like everyones respectful opinion. Thankfully this era of cubs baseball is ovedr now why i think it was bad is cuz we almost had a new team or players every year now too me itd make sense to go the diff route and draft and grow young players like what most are aying but i think we should cut major spending on a free agent who will come here and usually suck like what some people have mentioned (no offense) ideas?


Your thankful this era of cubs baseball is over? You mean the most successful decade the cubs have had in most of our lifetimes?

Doogolas
07-11-2010, 06:20 PM
I'm sorry, I don't want to be mean, but this is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read.

You can think whatever you want. But I've seen no evidence aside from you saying, "The list is huge." Show me something where big players who were significantly good for some stretch of time started sucking. Because all of them that I can think of stayed good for quite a while. When Kirel and I talked about it on AIM he agreed with me that it seemed like really big guys aged well.

I mean, if you're right fine, but at least provide some evidence.

Jilly Bohnson
07-11-2010, 07:33 PM
You can think whatever you want. But I've seen no evidence aside from you saying, "The list is huge." Show me something where big players who were significantly good for some stretch of time started sucking. Because all of them that I can think of stayed good for quite a while. When Kirel and I talked about it on AIM he agreed with me that it seemed like really big guys aged well.

I mean, if you're right fine, but at least provide some evidence.

You honestly think being unathletic makes it more likely that you'll age well into your early 30's? Really? Do I honestly need to explain why that's crazy?

Not to mention you ignored the whole point. The point isn't Dunn's size, it's the fact that he has a huge K-rate and no defensive value. Once the bat slows down a little and they can't hit good pitches out anymore, pitchers start pounding the zone and they get eaten alive. They turn into Micah Hoffpauir, mistake hitters that'll hit the occasional moonshot but provide no other value.

poodski
07-11-2010, 08:13 PM
I do not want Dunn anywhere near this team. Unless its at a maximum of the deal he just got from the Nationals, and even thats a bit of a stretch.

slikrick7
07-11-2010, 09:54 PM
Your thankful this era of cubs baseball is over? You mean the most successful decade the cubs have had in most of our lifetimes?

yes excuse me that im not satisfied w/out a world series i mean lets be logical we were good but apparently not good enough

Captain Obvious
07-11-2010, 10:01 PM
I do not want Dunn anywhere near this team. Unless its at a maximum of the deal he just got from the Nationals, and even thats a bit of a stretch.

I'm with you on this one. I would just rather hold out for Gonzo or Fielder.

Doogolas
07-11-2010, 10:57 PM
Why the hell do you not want Dunn near this team Poods? I think he's shown this year he can defend just fine at first base. He's been better as he's gotten more playing time this year, and he's gotten more this year than any year in his career.

Captain Obvious
07-11-2010, 11:01 PM
Why the hell do you not want Dunn near this team Poods? I think he's shown this year he can defend just fine at first base. He's been better as he's gotten more playing time this year, and he's gotten more this year than any year in his career.

Think about it though. If we get Dunn, we can't get Gonzo or Fielder, because we'd have to play Dunn in the OF and we have no room in the OF.

Doogolas
07-11-2010, 11:04 PM
Think about it though. If we get Dunn, we can't get Gonzo or Fielder, because we'd have to play Dunn in the OF and we have no room in the OF.

Why the hell would Dunn not play 1B? If Dunn is in fact a mediocre fielder as he's shown to be this year at 1B then he is every bit as good as fielder and nearly as good as Gonzo and will certainly be a lot cheaper.

Mell413
07-11-2010, 11:05 PM
Think about it though. If we get Dunn, we can't get Gonzo or Fielder, because we'd have to play Dunn in the OF and we have no room in the OF.

I don't think the Cubs are a lock to get any of those two though. If San Diego keeps playing this well I don't see him leaving. I can see Fielder going to Boston and Gonzo staying in San Diego. If we can get Dunn for two years and close to the money he gets now I'd consider it.

Doogolas
07-11-2010, 11:07 PM
You honestly think being unathletic makes it more likely that you'll age well into your early 30's? Really? Do I honestly need to explain why that's crazy?

Not to mention you ignored the whole point. The point isn't Dunn's size, it's the fact that he has a huge K-rate and no defensive value. Once the bat slows down a little and they can't hit good pitches out anymore, pitchers start pounding the zone and they get eaten alive. They turn into Micah Hoffpauir, mistake hitters that'll hit the occasional moonshot but provide no other value.

And you said the list is endless with guys where that's happened. Show me. Show me some of these examples because everybody I can think of that's a big mother****er and K's, walks or homers most of the time have aged quite well. There aren't that many big 3 true guys that make it to the bigs. There's tons of athletes and I can make a list a mile long of athletes that, as they got older, slowed down immensely. Every big guy I can think of does quite well into their mid to late 30's. You could very well be right, I'm just going off what I've seen and can think of.

And especially with the steroid era having been the 90's that skews things and makes it way harder on me because I simply don't know a ton of players sans super stars from the 80's and before. But all the big, 3 true outcomes guys I can think of have stayed quite good.

Captain Obvious
07-11-2010, 11:09 PM
Why the hell would Dunn not play 1B? If Dunn is in fact a mediocre fielder as he's shown to be this year at 1B then he is every bit as good as fielder and nearly as good as Gonzo and will certainly be a lot cheaper.

Okay, we play Dunn at 1B and we put Gonzo or Fielder where? Pitcher?

Doogolas
07-11-2010, 11:14 PM
Okay, we play Dunn at 1B and we put Gonzo or Fielder where? Pitcher?

Why the hell do we need one of them? Dunn can provide almost the exact same thing for way, WAY cheaper. And neither of them is anywhere near a sure thing to leave. We already know Dunn likes the Cubs as he wanted to play here a couple years ago so that gives us a decent shot at signing him and we need a 1B next year. Dunn is also not coveted by the league as a whole, hence why he got so little in his last contract. And likely will get something similar, maybe $15MM per year at most.

Fielder and Gonzo will likely get upwards of $20MM dollars. And while they're worth it and we should be able to afford it they're going to get offers from all over the place and I see no reason to hold out hope that they pick us. Dunn on the other hand will likely only draw interest from a few teams and he has said he likes the Cubs and would like to play here in the past, so chances are if we offer him what he'll likely get on the market that he'd come here.

Captain Obvious
07-11-2010, 11:18 PM
Why the hell do we need one of them? Dunn can provide almost the exact same thing for way, WAY cheaper. And neither of them is anywhere near a sure thing to leave. We already know Dunn likes the Cubs as he wanted to play here a couple years ago so that gives us a decent shot at signing him and we need a 1B next year. Dunn is also not coveted by the league as a whole, hence why he got so little in his last contract. And likely will get something similar, maybe $15MM per year at most.

Fielder and Gonzo will likely get upwards of $20MM dollars. And while they're worth it and we should be able to afford it they're going to get offers from all over the place and I see no reason to hold out hope that they pick us. Dunn on the other hand will likely only draw interest from a few teams and he has said he likes the Cubs and would like to play here in the past, so chances are if we offer him what he'll likely get on the market that he'd come here.

Because they have the potential to be the 6 win player the Cubs lack.

WrigleyWonder
07-11-2010, 11:23 PM
As much as seeing Jayson Werth in Cubbie blue would be, it's not likely to happen.

I've talked to several people who went to high school with him (I'm from Springfield, myself) and they all say that they'd be really surprised to see him end up with the Cubs.

He grew up a die hard Cardinals fan, from what I understand, and the Cubs just aren't on his radar.

Who cares what people that went to high school with him said?
Who cares who he grew up rooting for?

Dumb reasons.

Captain Obvious
07-11-2010, 11:31 PM
Who cares what people that went to high school with him said?
Who cares who he grew up rooting for?

Dumb reasons.

It's not like he would confide in friends.

And HONESTLY? Are you serious on the 2nd point? Would you ever play for the Cardinals if you had a choice in the matter? I sure as hell wouldn't.

Doogolas
07-12-2010, 12:18 AM
Because they have the potential to be the 6 win player the Cubs lack.

Well, Fielder isn't a lock as a 6 win player, he's been a six win player one time. And if Dunn is actually a below average to neutral fielder he's just as likely to be a six win player as Fielder is.

So really you just want A-Gon. And the chances of getting him are not exactly high since every team will want him and he'll cost far more than Dunn will. Holding out hope for one guy just seems like a gamble that's almost certainly going to be lost. IIRC Fielder and Gonzalez are FA after 2011 right? I just don't like the idea of holding out that they won't resign and will come here. I think you at least have to try for Dunn this year and if you don't get him go hard for them next year.

1908_Cubs
07-12-2010, 12:46 AM
Well, Fielder isn't a lock as a 6 win player, he's been a six win player one time. And if Dunn is actually a below average to neutral fielder he's just as likely to be a six win player as Fielder is.

So really you just want A-Gon. And the chances of getting him are not exactly high since every team will want him and he'll cost far more than Dunn will. Holding out hope for one guy just seems like a gamble that's almost certainly going to be lost. IIRC Fielder and Gonzalez are FA after 2011 right? I just don't like the idea of holding out that they won't resign and will come here. I think you at least have to try for Dunn this year and if you don't get him go hard for them next year.

I'm the biggest Dunn fan on this board. And I'm not going after Adam Dunn. At all. He doesn't turn this team around by himself, he's on the wrong side of 30, and at this point, I'm tired of signing wrong side of the their 30's ballplayers. He's going to want a big payday, and honestly, 35 year old Adam Dunn patrolling anywhere but DH to me sounds like a really bad idea. I don't see him taking two years again.

We go after Carl Crawford this year and that's about it. At least, that's what I'd do. Chalk 2011 up to a play-the-youngin's season and shoot for 2012. Go after A-Gon and Fielder hard in 2011. And as much as I love Dunn, you have to ignore him this season.

Doogolas
07-12-2010, 02:26 AM
I'm the biggest Dunn fan on this board. And I'm not going after Adam Dunn. At all. He doesn't turn this team around by himself, he's on the wrong side of 30, and at this point, I'm tired of signing wrong side of the their 30's ballplayers. He's going to want a big payday, and honestly, 35 year old Adam Dunn patrolling anywhere but DH to me sounds like a really bad idea. I don't see him taking two years again.

We go after Carl Crawford this year and that's about it. At least, that's what I'd do. Chalk 2011 up to a play-the-youngin's season and shoot for 2012. Go after A-Gon and Fielder hard in 2011. And as much as I love Dunn, you have to ignore him this season.

35 year old Adam Dunn would be in the last year of his deal. I'd be shocked if he got more than 4 years at $60MM total. If he wants/gets more than that, I agree, don't sign him. But 4 years at $60MM I'd be all for. I also hate the idea of Crawford, he's gonna want at least 6 years and he's going to be 30 next year. So he'll be on the wrong side of 30 as well. He's seriously a year older than Dunn. Signing him to the contract he's going to want is going to be far more detrimental than getting Dunn for what he's going to want.

Crawford will probably get something near Soriano's contract. And that would be very, very bad.

1908_Cubs
07-12-2010, 02:28 AM
35 year old Adam Dunn would be in the last year of his deal. I'd be shocked if he got more than 4 years at $60MM total. If he wants/gets more than that, I agree, don't sign him. But 4 years at $60MM I'd be all for.

Not me. Not in the least. I'd go $2 year, $30m, and not a single second more. Even 34 year old Adam Dunn makes me gag thinking of him in the field.

Save the money, attack a 1b you can get for 5+ years of good seasons. Especially considering all signs point to us sucking *** again next year, so theoretically, the best year of Dunn would be wasted on a wasted season.

Doogolas
07-12-2010, 02:30 AM
Not me. Not in the least. I'd go $2 year, $30m, and not a single second more. Even 34 year old Adam Dunn makes me gag thinking of him in the field.

Save the money, attack a 1b you can get for 5+ years of good seasons. Especially considering all signs point to us sucking *** again next year, so theoretically, the best year of Dunn would be wasted on a wasted season.

So you'd rather go for Crawford, who you probably have to sign for something like 6 years at $120 million? That would be so much worse than Dunn for four years.

1908_Cubs
07-12-2010, 02:44 AM
So you'd rather go for Crawford, who you probably have to sign for something like 6 years at $120 million? That would be so much worse than Dunn for four years.

Crawford's a legit 5 win player. Dunn is more in the 3-4 win range. Hell, last year he was a 1.2 WAR. I love Dunn, but yes, I don't want a DH playing 1b for this team.

Crawford's going to be athletic for the bulk of that contract. Yes I'd rather pay 6 years of Crawford from ages 29-35 over Dunn 31-35. The last year of that contract won't be amazing, but it wont be for either of them. The difference is that with Crawford, you're getting prime years under 30 on that contract, you're getting the better player, and you're getting a player naturally athletic which should lead to better twilight years, where as Dunn's body will be a detriment.

Jilly Bohnson
07-12-2010, 04:03 AM
And you said the list is endless with guys where that's happened. Show me. Show me some of these examples because everybody I can think of that's a big mother****er and K's, walks or homers most of the time have aged quite well. There aren't that many big 3 true guys that make it to the bigs. There's tons of athletes and I can make a list a mile long of athletes that, as they got older, slowed down immensely. Every big guy I can think of does quite well into their mid to late 30's. You could very well be right, I'm just going off what I've seen and can think of.

And especially with the steroid era having been the 90's that skews things and makes it way harder on me because I simply don't know a ton of players sans super stars from the 80's and before. But all the big, 3 true outcomes guys I can think of have stayed quite good.

I don't know where this fascination is with guys being big came from. The main point is the K's/lack of contact, while the big part more has to do with not having any other skills to fall back on. But here's a list for you: Bobby Bonds, Rob Deer, Sammy Sosa, Jack Cust, Mo Vaugh, Mark Bellhorn, Cecil Fielder, Dave Kingman, Richie Sexson, Jim Edmonds. All high K guys who fell off the cliff considerably in their early to mid 30's. With Edmonds and Bonds as pretty much the only ones with any defensive value to offer. And the fact is Dunn makes less contact than even most of those guys. He's some age or some semi-serious injury away from being useless.

Milnertime
07-12-2010, 04:11 AM
Who cares what people that went to high school with him said?
Who cares who he grew up rooting for?

Dumb reasons.
It's not a dumb reason at all. He gets to choose who he's going to play for next year and beyond.

I doubt many players would choose to play for teams they grew up hating.


You're a dumb reason.

Doogolas
07-12-2010, 08:11 AM
I don't know where this fascination is with guys being big came from. The main point is the K's/lack of contact, while the big part more has to do with not having any other skills to fall back on. But here's a list for you: Bobby Bonds, Rob Deer, Sammy Sosa, Jack Cust, Mo Vaugh, Mark Bellhorn, Cecil Fielder, Dave Kingman, Richie Sexson, Jim Edmonds. All high K guys who fell off the cliff considerably in their early to mid 30's. With Edmonds and Bonds as pretty much the only ones with any defensive value to offer. And the fact is Dunn makes less contact than even most of those guys. He's some age or some semi-serious injury away from being useless.

Sammy was very good until he was 36.
Bobby only made it to 33 it looks like. He only played 86 games the next year though, did he get some injury?
Rob Deer basically always sucked. He had ****** years by the time he was 29, 30, 31. Random great year at 32 but he was just never very good.
Jack Cust? He's 31 and having a very good year to this point. Sure he's hurt right now, but when he's played he's been quite good.
Mo Vaughn made it to about 35.
Richie died at 32.
Mark Bellhorn? Seriously? He had two good years ever.
Edmonds made it to 36.

Only Bobby and Sexson fell off before 35 years old. And Dunn on a 4 year contract would be his 31, 32, 33, 34 year seasons. So I don't really see the risk there. I mean, most players fall off around 35+ years of age.

poodski
07-12-2010, 08:49 AM
I don't know where this fascination is with guys being big came from. The main point is the K's/lack of contact, while the big part more has to do with not having any other skills to fall back on. But here's a list for you: Bobby Bonds, Rob Deer, Sammy Sosa, Jack Cust, Mo Vaugh, Mark Bellhorn, Cecil Fielder, Dave Kingman, Richie Sexson, Jim Edmonds. All high K guys who fell off the cliff considerably in their early to mid 30's. With Edmonds and Bonds as pretty much the only ones with any defensive value to offer. And the fact is Dunn makes less contact than even most of those guys. He's some age or some semi-serious injury away from being useless.

Alright but here are some you forgot:

Reggie Jackson: OPS+ above 116 5 times after age 34
Jim Thome: OPS+ above 118 5 times after age 34
Andres Gallaraga: OPS+ above 118 5 times after age 34
Willie Stargell: OPS+ above 125 7 times after age 34
Mike Schmidt: OPS+ above 142 four years after age 34 (another at 112)
Fred McGriff: OPS+ above 110 5 times after age 34
Tony Perez: OPS+ above 104 4 times after age 34

Sure there are some that struggle and all these guys of course declined, but were still very good. And this is after age 34. These are 7 of the top 9 strikeout people of all time. The only two in the top 10 that really fell apart were Sosa and Canseco (Cameron is still playing but playing fairly well).

I don't think there is really any proof he will fall off, but he should definitely be good for the next 3-4 years.

I am coming around to him more and more, and I would rather have him than Crawford at this point (pending money demands).

semperfi
07-12-2010, 09:04 AM
...Jack Cust? He's 31 and having a very good year to this point. Sure he's hurt right now, but when he's played he's been quite good.
Mo Vaughn made it to about 35.
Richie died at 32.
Mark Bellhorn? Seriously? He had two good years ever.
Edmonds made it to 36....


I just spent the last 5 minutes googling "richie sexson dead." :facepalm:

Doogolas
07-12-2010, 09:06 AM
...Jack Cust? He's 31 and having a very good year to this point. Sure he's hurt right now, but when he's played he's been quite good.
Mo Vaughn made it to about 35.
Richie died at 32.
Mark Bellhorn? Seriously? He had two good years ever.
Edmonds made it to 36....


I just spent the last 5 minutes googling "richie sexson dead." :facepalm:

:laugh2:

1908_Cubs
07-12-2010, 10:59 AM
Sammy was very good until he was 36.
Bobby only made it to 33 it looks like. He only played 86 games the next year though, did he get some injury?
Rob Deer basically always sucked. He had ****** years by the time he was 29, 30, 31. Random great year at 32 but he was just never very good.
Jack Cust? He's 31 and having a very good year to this point. Sure he's hurt right now, but when he's played he's been quite good.
Mo Vaughn made it to about 35.
Richie died at 32.
Mark Bellhorn? Seriously? He had two good years ever.
Edmonds made it to 36.

Only Bobby and Sexson fell off before 35 years old. And Dunn on a 4 year contract would be his 31, 32, 33, 34 year seasons. So I don't really see the risk there. I mean, most players fall off around 35+ years of age.

You forgot to address Cecil Fielder. And might as well add in Tony Clarke.

And since when is Jack Cust having a "very good" year? He has a .434 SLGing and a BABIP of .404 (.70 points over career). He's a .9 WAR player. His OBP is nice but his SLGing has a dramatic drop off two years running. His ISO is down .30 points from last season. I don't think he's been that good. Serviceable with his OBP, sure. But that's going to drop when his career high .294 BA drops. I don't know how many more years Cust has, honestly.

Mo Vaughn made it to 34 being useful. He hit 35 and made it 94 AB's. And by 31 he was showing signs of drop off, posting his worst OPS in 6 years. Now, Vaughn isn't a great comparison because, well, Dunn's not that fat. But I disagree in your assessment of 35.

Sammy Sosa was a special case because there's a better than good chance, in my estimation, that Sammy Sosa was on something. I'm not turning this into a "did he" or "didn't he discussion", but to me, it's fairly obvious he was taking things. Whether or not it prolonged his career, Sammy Sosa is a player I don't like using to compare because of the shroud of doubt. He might never have been that big, it extended his career, etc, etc, etc.

I'm not even going with high-strikeout guys. I'm going with a body type that doesn't lend well to aging. Look at the players we've discussed and think about how many large-bodied players made it into their mid-to-later 30's being productive still? Now think of how many of them did it without any shroud of steroids/PED's looming (where there's smoke, there's fire). Hell, we can bring Ryan Howard into this discussion as well as he's already showing big signs of drop off. High-K, large bodied type player.

I'm not saying this is the proven track for Dunn. But the past suggests that there's at least a decent amount of proof here for major concern.

cowboydoc45
07-12-2010, 11:10 AM
Honestly, if we are to go after Dunn, I hope we do it smart, and instead of backloading the contract, put the highest pay days in his most valuable years. He could be a decent 1b that gives you power from the left... the biggest concern in my opinion would be years and money. If he is looking at a 5 year deal, or some crazy amount of money, then yeah, you avoid and move on. If he is looking for a reasonable amount of time, and maybe a little higher contract, you take your chances and pull the trigger.

Honestly, we are probably not going to be in the Fielder or Gonzales market, and Pujols is a pipe dream, Dunn would give us some power, and lord knows we don't exactly have anyone busting down the door at 1b as a prospect.

1908_Cubs
07-12-2010, 11:12 AM
Honestly, if we are to go after Dunn, I hope we do it smart, and instead of backloading the contract, put the highest pay days in his most valuable years. He could be a decent 1b that gives you power from the left... the biggest concern in my opinion would be years and money. If he is looking at a 5 year deal, or some crazy amount of money, then yeah, you avoid and move on. If he is looking for a reasonable amount of time, and maybe a little higher contract, you take your chances and pull the trigger.

Honestly, we are probably not going to be in the Fielder or Gonzales market, and Pujols is a pipe dream, Dunn would give us some power, and lord knows we don't exactly have anyone busting down the door at 1b as a prospect.

Why exactly wont we be in the Fielder/Gonzalez market?

We'll have a **** ton of money to spend next offseason with Lee, Ramirez, Lilly, Fukudome, Silva, etc, etc, all coming off the books. We'll need to buy someone and have zero 1b prospects outside of potentially Vitters. We'll certainly be in those markets.

poodski
07-12-2010, 11:15 AM
I'm not saying this is the proven track for Dunn. But the past suggests that there's at least a decent amount of proof here for major concern.

And there is a decent amount of reason for no concern.

I think age is just random, sometimes it makes sense sometimes it doesn't.

I will say the people most similar to Dunn have mostly fell off around age 35.

Buhner, Canseco, and Sosa, though a few a littler earlier like Burrell, Strawberry (drugs?), Sexson. But some were good through later on like Reggie Jackson, Killebrew, Hank Sauer, and Bonds (roids?).

I just think its completely up in the air. There are people that fall off at 32, 35 and 38. these are the players most similar to Dunn as well, according to similarity scores.

Just for comparison to Crawford: Clemente was fine, but thats really about the only one worth comparing him to, because the others like him are from pre 1950. Claudell Washington I suppose he was done at 34. Damon is still doing alright, but Crawford is a rare breed it seems. His legs though cause concern. There is a chance that in 4 years Dunn is worth more than Crawford.

I dont know, I dont like either longer than 4 years, and Dunn probably no more than 3 years. Only way I would do 6 years for Crawford is if the 5th year is a club option with a 6 or 7 million dollar buyout.

poodski
07-12-2010, 11:19 AM
Why exactly wont we be in the Fielder/Gonzalez market?

We'll have a **** ton of money to spend next offseason with Lee, Ramirez, Lilly, Fukudome, Silva, etc, etc, all coming off the books. We'll need to buy someone and have zero 1b prospects outside of potentially Vitters. We'll certainly be in those markets.

Not only that but who is going to need a 1B?

Astros? Giants? Rockies? Braves? Those are about the only ones with any money I can see going after a 1B. Other than us, and we will have by far the most money. The high payroll teams arent going to need a 1B in 2012. We are really the only ones without the spot locked down.

cowboydoc45
07-12-2010, 11:22 AM
Not only that but who is going to need a 1B?

Astros? Giants? Rockies? Braves? Those are about the only ones with any money I can see going after a 1B. Other than us, and we will have by far the most money. The high payroll teams arent going to need a 1B in 2012. We are really the only ones without the spot locked down.

I guess I didn't look at it from that aspect, however, how many large market teams would also be willing to sign a guy like Gonzales, Pujols, or Fielder, regardless of what they have sitting at 1B, and then trade their current 1B? (that could open up a whole new argument, or option.)

1908_Cubs
07-12-2010, 11:23 AM
And there is a decent amount of reason for no concern.

I think age is just random, sometimes it makes sense sometimes it doesn't.

I will say the people most similar to Dunn have mostly fell off around age 35.

Buhner, Canseco, and Sosa, though a few a littler earlier like Burrell, Strawberry (drugs?), Sexson. But some were good through later on like Reggie Jackson, Killebrew, Hank Sauer, and Bonds (roids?).

I just think its completely up in the air. There are people that fall off at 32, 35 and 38. these are the players most similar to Dunn as well, according to similarity scores.

Just for comparison to Crawford: Clemente was fine, but thats really about the only one worth comparing him to, because the others like him are from pre 1950. Claudell Washington I suppose he was done at 34. Damon is still doing alright, but Crawford is a rare breed it seems. His legs though cause concern. There is a chance that in 4 years Dunn is worth more than Crawford.

I dont know, I dont like either longer than 4 years, and Dunn probably no more than 3 years. Only way I would do 6 years for Crawford is if the 5th year is a club option with a 6 or 7 million dollar buyout.

Just looking, a 4 year deal with Dunn and a 6 year with Crawford both have them ending at the same age of 35. I guess I feel safer with Crawford as a 35 year old over Dunn considering Dunn is the far better bet to, at the age of 35, be a DH only. While Crawford's speed with obviously be declining, he doesn't seem to be a guy who's going to lose all athletic ability. Dunn, on the other hand, could easily become a DH only by that time,

If we were an AL team, I'd have a different opinion on it. Crawford will fall off at some point, certainly, I just think the fall will be a little more subtle. Dunn has that risk of falling on his face. And it hurts me because I absolutely love Adam Dunn. He reminds me a little bit of Jim Thome, who is one of my all-time favorites.

1908_Cubs
07-12-2010, 11:27 AM
Not only that but who is going to need a 1B?

Astros? Giants? Rockies? Braves? Those are about the only ones with any money I can see going after a 1B. Other than us, and we will have by far the most money. The high payroll teams arent going to need a 1B in 2012. We are really the only ones without the spot locked down.


Boston, maybe. They've been hot on Gonzalez for years. The Dodgers if they get fed up with Loney. The White Sox potentially. Houston, but I don't think anyone will go to that shitstorm of a team. Texas after they dealt Smoak and will be out of bankruptcy would be an option - however, will have to pay their youngin's around that time. I could see Baltimore getting in on something. They keep acting like they're going to compete, by 2011 their young players may have developed some.

But you've got teams like the Yankees, the Cardinals, the Phillies, the Tigers, and the Angels who have 1b already. Which is nice getting them out of the mix.

poodski
07-12-2010, 11:30 AM
I guess I didn't look at it from that aspect, however, how many large market teams would also be willing to sign a guy like Gonzales, Pujols, or Fielder, regardless of what they have sitting at 1B, and then trade their current 1B? (that could open up a whole new argument, or option.)

Maybe, but the main big three I think of are Red Sox, Yankees, and Phillies.

Red Sox maybe as Youk will be in the last year, but signed very cheap (12M).

The Mets maybe if Ike Davis falls apart could be in the running. Tigers have Miggy. White Sox are a good possibility. Angels got Morales, Mariners just got Smoak. Giants sure, Twins have Morneau, Cardinals would need one if they lost Pujols, Dodgers have Loney so maybe. Those are the top 13 right now in payroll. 14-16 are the Astros, Braves and Rockies, who should be in the market.

I really think the level of demand will be in our favor.

poodski
07-12-2010, 11:32 AM
He reminds me a little bit of Jim Thome, who is one of my all-time favorites.

But look at Thome. Until age 36 he has one bad year. I am not sure Dunn will have that success, but there is some reason to think he will be good til age 35 or so.

Sure he could fall off at age 32, but he has shown no signs of slowing down at all yet.

Mostly I just dont want to spend multi million on another OF for what seems like the 15th year in a row.

cowboydoc45
07-12-2010, 11:36 AM
But look at Thome. Until age 36 he has one bad year. I am not sure Dunn will have that success, but there is some reason to think he will be good til age 35 or so.

Sure he could fall off at age 32, but he has shown no signs of slowing down at all yet.

Mostly I just dont want to spend multi million on another OF for what seems like the 15th year in a row.

If he were signed by the Cubs, most likely it would be as a 1b with possibilities of playing OF part time as a back up.

poodski
07-12-2010, 11:42 AM
If he were signed by the Cubs, most likely it would be as a 1b with possibilities of playing OF part time as a back up.

Meant that in reference to Crawford sorry.

cowboydoc45
07-12-2010, 11:44 AM
Meant that in reference to Crawford sorry.

Got it. Honestly, Crawford is a great player, but he is going to want Soriano type money, if not more...

poodski
07-12-2010, 11:51 AM
Got it. Honestly, Crawford is a great player, but he is going to want Soriano type money, if not more...

Exactly. the other issue is he is gonna want to play LF. We already have a LF'er so someone most likely Soriano is going to be moved to RF.

So now we have a player playing a new position two huge contracts in the OF.

Plus you pretty much have to keep Byrd to play CF now, and 1B becomes an issue. You can put Colvin there or possibly resign Nady or maybe Lee. Lee is going to be pricey as well.

Not only that but that plan still doesnt include any plan for Fukudome.

I just don't see Crawford as feasible or smart. Dunn to me makes more sense.

In no way is Dunn as good as Crawford, but Crawford just doesn't fit on this team.

windycityD
07-12-2010, 11:51 AM
Honestly, if we are to go after Dunn, I hope we do it smart, and instead of backloading the contract, put the highest pay days in his most valuable years. He could be a decent 1b that gives you power from the left... the biggest concern in my opinion would be years and money. If he is looking at a 5 year deal, or some crazy amount of money, then yeah, you avoid and move on. If he is looking for a reasonable amount of time, and maybe a little higher contract, you take your chances and pull the trigger.

Honestly, we are probably not going to be in the Fielder or Gonzales market, and Pujols is a pipe dream, Dunn would give us some power, and lord knows we don't exactly have anyone busting down the door at 1b as a prospect.

Fielder will end up in the AL, where he belongs. They can get a very good spec haul of pitching for him imo, and if need be, move Braun to 1b. The Brewers did surprise me by saying they would listen to offers for Hart, though. Lots of teams are going to want that guy.

Dunn will get four years, one way or another. Front loading the deal is not only not the norm, but wont happen. He's an elite bat, Type A FA who's contract will be utterly stupid & back loaded.

If you want to add power at 1b and still have money left to plug other holes (ex 2b, rotation), you do NOT sign Dunn, period. His contract, plus Soriano's, would be an ocean of water to carry, all into their decline years. As far as 1b goes, guys like Branyan have real value. Sea getting Smoak for Lee will make that 2011 option on Branyan null and void in their long-term plans. The other reason I like Branyan is that for 6 mil, you can do him up for two years and gradually work (assuming he's not a bust) Vitters (or another 1b spec we may acquire) into the equation from late 2011-2012.

poodski
07-12-2010, 12:05 PM
Fielder will end up in the AL, where he belongs. They can get a very good spec haul of pitching for him imo, and if need be, move Braun to 1b. The Brewers did surprise me by saying they would listen to offers for Hart, though. Lots of teams are going to want that guy.

Dunn will get four years, one way or another. Front loading the deal is not only not the norm, but wont happen. He's an elite bat, Type A FA who's contract will be utterly stupid & back loaded.

If you want to add power at 1b and still have money left to plug other holes (ex 2b, rotation), you do NOT sign Dunn, period. His contract, plus Soriano's, would be an ocean of water to carry, all into their decline years. As far as 1b goes, guys like Branyan have real value. Sea getting Smoak for Lee will make that 2011 option on Branyan null and void in their long-term plans. The other reason I like Branyan is that for 6 mil, you can do him up for two years and gradually work (assuming he's not a bust) Vitters (or another 1b spec we may acquire) into the equation from late 2011-2012.

Fielder isnt terrible at 1B actually. People only think he should be in the AL because he is fat. He has much more value to a team as a 1B than he does as a DH, at least right now. Plus I dont think anyone is going to pay him as much as a DH, as they will as a 1B. So I think he will be a 1B through his next contract. Maybe not the following one, but for now I think he will and should be viewed as a 1B.

And as far as Dunn getting four years, you would think thats correct, but last time he got almost nothing. 2 years 20 million was all he ended up with, and he just came off 5 straight 40 HR years. The market just isnt there it seems. Its odd.

cowboydoc45
07-12-2010, 12:09 PM
Fielder isnt terrible at 1B actually. People only think he should be in the AL because he is fat. He has much more value to a team as a 1B than he does as a DH, at least right now. Plus I dont think anyone is going to pay him as much as a DH, as they will as a 1B. So I think he will be a 1B through his next contract. Maybe not the following one, but for now I think he will and should be viewed as a 1B.

And as far as Dunn getting four years, you would think thats correct, but last time he got almost nothing. 2 years 20 million was all he ended up with, and he just came off 5 straight 40 HR years. The market just isnt there it seems. Its odd.

:shrug: maybe he can be a low paid sleeper all the way to the HOF

windycityD
07-12-2010, 12:34 PM
Fielder isnt terrible at 1B actually. People only think he should be in the AL because he is fat. He has much more value to a team as a 1B than he does as a DH, at least right now. Plus I dont think anyone is going to pay him as much as a DH, as they will as a 1B. So I think he will be a 1B through his next contract. Maybe not the following one, but for now I think he will and should be viewed as a 1B.

And as far as Dunn getting four years, you would think thats correct, but last time he got almost nothing. 2 years 20 million was all he ended up with, and he just came off 5 straight 40 HR years. The market just isnt there it seems. Its odd.

Genetics> raw veggies. Whether it's 3-4 years from now or sooner, the guy is a load and those knees will feel that once 30+ creeps in. I'm also not saying he would immediately be a DH, at all. His long-term value is that he can play the field for a while longer, then eventually transition to DH. In my mind, Boston or Tampa would be great fits for him and both could offer the Brewers pitching specs, which is exactly what they will want for Fielder.

Dunn got 20 mil for two years in Washington when he was not the premier bat on the market. He will be just that this time around. Crawford is the better overall player/ bat, but Dunn is the 40+ HR power bat I fear we will take a huge bite on. If we sign him to a deal like that, we'll be even deeper in a mess than we already are with contracts. If you think Hendry is capable of signing Dunn for 2 years and let's say 33.5-34 mil, you're talking about the wrong GM. Hendry would go 3 minimum, if not a 4th year via vesting or player option. No thanks.

semperfi
07-12-2010, 12:42 PM
I'd have to imagine there aren't many free agents that would want to come to the Cubs right now unless we overpay them.

Bad Roster
Bad History
Bad Theriot
Bad Chemistry
Bad Manager
Bad Day Games
Bad Stadium Utilities

Obviously these are all debatable except for the 3rd one.

Iffybiz
07-12-2010, 01:10 PM
I think it's a wrong move (but one always done by the Cubs) to just think about next year. Sure adding Dunn will make you better for a year or two but that has been our strategy for a long time and how has that worked out? If you want to be good for a long time you have to build from within, go young and make your farm system the best in baseball. Until that happens your always going to end up with teams with major holes filled with overpriced and past their prime players.
Do the best job you can in cleaning house of the bad contracts and start over.
First thing I'd do is hire Dombrowski as my President of Operations and have him bring in Avila as the GM. Bring in someone with some vision and ability to build a farm system to handle the baseball end of things.

Jilly Bohnson
07-12-2010, 01:13 PM
Sammy was very good until he was 36.
Bobby only made it to 33 it looks like. He only played 86 games the next year though, did he get some injury?
Rob Deer basically always sucked. He had ****** years by the time he was 29, 30, 31. Random great year at 32 but he was just never very good.
Jack Cust? He's 31 and having a very good year to this point. Sure he's hurt right now, but when he's played he's been quite good.
Mo Vaughn made it to about 35.
Richie died at 32.
Mark Bellhorn? Seriously? He had two good years ever.
Edmonds made it to 36.

Only Bobby and Sexson fell off before 35 years old. And Dunn on a 4 year contract would be his 31, 32, 33, 34 year seasons. So I don't really see the risk there. I mean, most players fall off around 35+ years of age.

Here's the thing you're ignoring, the offensive bar is very high for extremely poor defenders like most of these guys are and Dunn is. An .800 OPS even for a guy like that is not enough. Vaugh, Cust, and others had a few decent triple slash lines towards the end of their careers but it wasn't enough to offset their defense. If Dunn's hitting .220/.350/.430 or something, he is actively hurting our team. That from a bad 1b or a very bad corner outfielder is simply put not enough.

Also, I'm not so sure you can just use

Alright but here are some you forgot:

Reggie Jackson: OPS+ above 116 5 times after age 34
Jim Thome: OPS+ above 118 5 times after age 34
Andres Gallaraga: OPS+ above 118 5 times after age 34
Willie Stargell: OPS+ above 125 7 times after age 34
Mike Schmidt: OPS+ above 142 four years after age 34 (another at 112)
Fred McGriff: OPS+ above 110 5 times after age 34
Tony Perez: OPS+ above 104 4 times after age 34

Sure there are some that struggle and all these guys of course declined, but were still very good. And this is after age 34. These are 7 of the top 9 strikeout people of all time. The only two in the top 10 that really fell apart were Sosa and Canseco (Cameron is still playing but playing fairly well).

I don't think there is really any proof he will fall off, but he should definitely be good for the next 3-4 years.

I am coming around to him more and more, and I would rather have him than Crawford at this point (pending money demands).

Mcgriff, Perez, Schmidt were all under 20 percent for their K-rates, so I don't think we can really include them. But yeah that's another 4 names on the positive side fo the ledger.

Jilly Bohnson
07-12-2010, 01:15 PM
Exactly. the other issue is he is gonna want to play LF. We already have a LF'er so someone most likely Soriano is going to be moved to RF.

So now we have a player playing a new position two huge contracts in the OF.

Plus you pretty much have to keep Byrd to play CF now, and 1B becomes an issue. You can put Colvin there or possibly resign Nady or maybe Lee. Lee is going to be pricey as well.

Not only that but that plan still doesnt include any plan for Fukudome.

I just don't see Crawford as feasible or smart. Dunn to me makes more sense.

In no way is Dunn as good as Crawford, but Crawford just doesn't fit on this team.

You could always trade Fuku and Byrd. Or trade Fuku and have Colvin at 1b for a year. Really there's a lot of time left, we need to see what happens at the deadline and how Colvin does the rest of the year, but it'll probably be pretty uncomplicated to get him into our lineup.

poodski
07-12-2010, 01:17 PM
Mcgriff, Perez, Schmidt were all under 20 percent for their K-rates, so I don't think we can really include them. But yeah that's another 4 names on the positive side fo the ledger.

I dont have any idea how to sort by K rate for all time. I just went most K's of all time.

I think there is a good chance he falls apart (though not as early as you do), but it by no means is a guarantee.

I think the move to 1B is really going to help lengthen his career.

Jilly Bohnson
07-12-2010, 01:21 PM
I dont have any idea how to sort by K rate for all time. I just went most K's of all time.

I think there is a good chance he falls apart (though not as early as you do), but it by no means is a guarantee.

I think the move to 1B is really going to help lengthen his career.

I never said he would fall apart early. I just took issue with Doogolas saying "guys like him age well," which is pretty much the opposite of true. He's a high K guy who's unathletic so he provides no defensive value and probably has a higher chance for injury. Most guys last til at least 35 unless there are extenuating circumstances, but for a guy like Dunn the odds are lower.

Doogolas
07-12-2010, 01:32 PM
But it's not the opposite of true, even the guys' you named, most of them aged just fine dude.

And sorry about Cecil, he made it to about 34 while being useful. But he was once again, really never that good. You named a lot of really ****** players Jilly and VERY few as good at hitting as Adam Dunn. Seriously, only two guys really died early.

Also, 1908 Dunn would end the 4th year of the contract at 34 because his birthday is in November. He'd play his 31, 32, 33, 34 year seasons out in the contract.

Guys like him appear to age just fine. In your list you gave me ****ing Deer and Bellhorn which is just ridiculous cause they're both career ****. Richie Sexson is really the only legitimate guy. I mean, watch, I'll give you a guy that fell off hard before 35 and was athletic:

Joe Morgan. He fell off at 33. And he's EXTREMELY comparable to Crawford in that regard. Not to mention one of the greatest hitters of all time. I see nothing to suggest that guys with 3 true outcome age any worse than guys that are athletic as hell. Alex Rodriguez is having a bad year but he turns 35 this year. He was also athletic early but still a 3 true outcome guy.

When I said ages well, I meant he'll survive a 4 year contract well. And I still think he will. There is no evidence to me that suggests otherwise. Another guy to add to the list is Giambi, up and through 37 he was still very productive.

Guys like him do age well. They make it to 35 with pretty much all their value in tact, which is all we need.

EDIT: Reggie Jackson's career K% was 26.3%

Killebrew was career 21%

Gallaraga 24.7%

Stargell 24.4%

McGriff career 21.5%

Thome 30%

Perez is the only guy he named with a K rate under 20% I'm not sure why you acted as though everyone Poods name didn't K that often. They K'd quite a lot.

I mean honestly what's the cutoff here? What are we looking at for people to count? Cause if 2% is a big deal on K rate or 3% then we're gonna have to find a lot of guys that walk way, way more. Because Dunn walks more than any of the guys you named as far as I'm aware.

Jilly Bohnson
07-12-2010, 01:45 PM
But it's not the opposite of true, even the guys' you named, most of them aged just fine dude.

And sorry about Cecil, he made it to about 34 while being useful. But he was once again, really never that good. You named a lot of really ****** players Jilly and VERY few as good at hitting as Adam Dunn. Seriously, only two guys really died early.

Also, 1908 Dunn would end the 4th year of the contract at 34 because his birthday is in November. He'd play his 31, 32, 33, 34 year seasons out in the contract.

Guys like him appear to age just fine. In your list you gave me ****ing Deer and Bellhorn which is just ridiculous cause they're both career ****. Richie Sexson is really the only legitimate guy. I mean, watch, I'll give you a guy that fell off hard before 35 and was athletic:

Joe Morgan. He fell off at 33. And he's EXTREMELY comparable to Crawford in that regard. Not to mention one of the greatest hitters of all time. I see nothing to suggest that guys with 3 true outcome age any worse than guys that are athletic as hell. Alex Rodriguez is having a bad year but he turns 35 this year. He was also athletic early but still a 3 true outcome guy.

When I said ages well, I meant he'll survive a 4 year contract well. And I still think he will. There is no evidence to me that suggests otherwise. Another guy to add to the list is Giambi, up and through 37 he was still very productive.

Guys like him do age well. They make it to 35 with pretty much all their value in tact, which is all we need.

Fielder was not useful at 34, he had a -.4 WAR that year. That's not useful. Many of the others are like that, you're taking a cursory look at their AVG/OBP/SLG and determining they were fine.

Jason Giambi is not a good guy to add to this list, he has a 17% K rate for his career compared to a 15% walk rate. That's outstanding. Once again you're paying way too much attention to big and not nearly enough to K-rate.

And why aren't Deer or Bellhorn valid? Just because they were never .900 OPS guys doesn't mean they're not valid to bring up in this discussion. Dunn K's about 27% of the time. That is huge, that's significantly more than most of the other guys I've been listing. And he's a poor defender wherever you put him. Even if he had a decent bat, that's not enough. He needs to be a monster with the bat to be good, and still very good to be even useful.

Jilly Bohnson
07-12-2010, 01:53 PM
But it's not the opposite of true, even the guys' you named, most of them aged just fine dude.

And sorry about Cecil, he made it to about 34 while being useful. But he was once again, really never that good. You named a lot of really ****** players Jilly and VERY few as good at hitting as Adam Dunn. Seriously, only two guys really died early.

Also, 1908 Dunn would end the 4th year of the contract at 34 because his birthday is in November. He'd play his 31, 32, 33, 34 year seasons out in the contract.

Guys like him appear to age just fine. In your list you gave me ****ing Deer and Bellhorn which is just ridiculous cause they're both career ****. Richie Sexson is really the only legitimate guy. I mean, watch, I'll give you a guy that fell off hard before 35 and was athletic:

Joe Morgan. He fell off at 33. And he's EXTREMELY comparable to Crawford in that regard. Not to mention one of the greatest hitters of all time. I see nothing to suggest that guys with 3 true outcome age any worse than guys that are athletic as hell. Alex Rodriguez is having a bad year but he turns 35 this year. He was also athletic early but still a 3 true outcome guy.

When I said ages well, I meant he'll survive a 4 year contract well. And I still think he will. There is no evidence to me that suggests otherwise. Another guy to add to the list is Giambi, up and through 37 he was still very productive.

Guys like him do age well. They make it to 35 with pretty much all their value in tact, which is all we need.

EDIT: Reggie Jackson's career K% was 26.3%

Killebrew was career 21%

Gallaraga 24.7%

Stargell 24.4%

McGriff career 21.5%

Thome 30%

Perez is the only guy he named with a K rate under 20% I'm not sure why you acted as though everyone Poods name didn't K that often. They K'd quite a lot.

I mean honestly what's the cutoff here? What are we looking at for people to count? Cause if 2% is a big deal on K rate or 3% then we're gonna have to find a lot of guys that walk way, way more. Because Dunn walks more than any of the guys you named as far as I'm aware.

False, Mcgriff is at 18.5 and Schmidt at 18.7.

And generally for me, the cutoff is at about 20%. But that's pretty arbitrary. But even if you want to make it higher or lower, the point still pretty much stands. 3 or 4 percent is 20-30 K's. If you look at the difference between lets say Dunn and Mcgriff, that's about 50-60 K's a year.

And walk rate will evaporate once he loses the ability to consistently hit the ball 450 feet. If/when he becomes a mistake hitter guys come back into the strike zone and he falls off. Even if he only falls off to an .800 OPS, that's still not enough since he has no value with his glove.

poodski
07-12-2010, 01:59 PM
Fielder was not useful at 34, he had a -.4 WAR that year. That's not useful. Many of the others are like that, you're taking a cursory look at their AVG/OBP/SLG and determining they were fine.

Jason Giambi is not a good guy to add to this list, he has a 17% K rate for his career compared to a 15% walk rate. That's outstanding. Once again you're paying way too much attention to big and not nearly enough to K-rate.

And why aren't Deer or Bellhorn valid? Just because they were never .900 OPS guys doesn't mean they're not valid to bring up in this discussion. Dunn K's about 27% of the time. That is huge, that's significantly more than most of the other guys I've been listing. And he's a poor defender wherever you put him. Even if he had a decent bat, that's not enough. He needs to be a monster with the bat to be good, and still very good to be even useful.

I dont think Bellhorn should be listed, because well he probably never should have been an every day major leaguer. So him falling off could be more that teams got smart rather than him falling apart, because outside of his year as a Cub he was a pretty awful palyer. He never even got 2500 PA for his career. I dont think he should really be considered in any discussion.

Deer I think is fairly valid. Though I would have liked to see more of a sample from him after age 32. I mean he was still a positive WAR at 32, but then was just gone. he crushed the minors at age 34 and despite striking out 30 of this 50 ABs at age 35 he still put up a 360/480 OBP/SLG before I assume being dropped because of his K's.

I would have liked to see more of Deer, because he almost looks like he still had it but people were too concerned with the strikeouts.

poodski
07-12-2010, 02:01 PM
Even if he only falls off to an .800 OPS,

Especially at 1B.

I still want him over Crawford because A) he is a power LHB that we havent had since Oh Henry. B) I dont see how Crawford can fit on this team, C) Will sign cheaper and will sign for less years.

Though I will fully admit Crawford is a much better player than Dunn.

I remember a few years ago when I liked Crawford a lot and people on here didn't. Good times.

Jilly Bohnson
07-12-2010, 02:07 PM
I dont think Bellhorn should be listed, because well he probably never should have been an every day major leaguer. So him falling off could be more that teams got smart rather than him falling apart, because outside of his year as a Cub he was a pretty awful palyer. He never even got 2500 PA for his career. I dont think he should really be considered in any discussion.

Deer I think is fairly valid. Though I would have liked to see more of a sample from him after age 32. I mean he was still a positive WAR at 32, but then was just gone. he crushed the minors at age 34 and despite striking out 30 of this 50 ABs at age 35 he still put up a 360/480 OBP/SLG before I assume being dropped because of his K's.

I would have liked to see more of Deer, because he almost looks like he still had it but people were too concerned with the strikeouts.

I kind of think it works since it shows that high K guys can and do fall off the cliff quickly. But it is a good point that he was never an established player before he fell off, so it's might not be fair to count him.


Especially at 1B.

I still want him over Crawford because A) he is a power LHB that we havent had since Oh Henry. B) I dont see how Crawford can fit on this team, C) Will sign cheaper and will sign for less years.

Though I will fully admit Crawford is a much better player than Dunn.

I remember a few years ago when I liked Crawford a lot and people on here didn't. Good times.

The way I look at it is that he's the type of player that you go and make room for. As for teh second thing, I don't remember that ;):whistle:

RedHeadsRule
07-12-2010, 02:18 PM
Something to think about, and I'm not sure how important this really is when considering signing Dunn, but within the next couple years, we could see an infield of Vitters, Hak Ju, and Castro. Now do we want a guy like Dunn being the one in charge of saving throwing errors from those young players? I have no idea how good he is at scooping balls, but I'm sure he's no DLee.

But since Vitters is struggling big time at AA and Lee is still in Peoria, maybe that's not even that important to consider. Just throwing it out there.

windycityD
07-12-2010, 02:19 PM
False, Mcgriff is at 18.5 and Schmidt at 18.7.

And generally for me, the cutoff is at about 20%. But that's pretty arbitrary. But even if you want to make it higher or lower, the point still pretty much stands. 3 or 4 percent is 20-30 K's. If you look at the difference between lets say Dunn and Mcgriff, that's about 50-60 K's a year.

And walk rate will evaporate once he loses the ability to consistently hit the ball 450 feet. If/when he becomes a mistake hitter guys come back into the strike zone and he falls off. Even if he only falls off to an .800 OPS, that's still not enough since he has no value with his glove.

Eh, I'm not too sure Dunn will ever significantly lose the ability to bombs away and his ability to take walks/ OBP has actually been a somewhat plus for him career wise. He's always been about low avg and a high-bad K rate, those wont ever get better.

What concerns me about Dunn is that by singing him, we'd be putting 60% of our payroll resources in 2011 and 2012 towards him. He's not enough of a player or hitter to make up that diff in that time span in relation to all the other needs we have & the current make up of the roster. Even if A Ram and Fukudome are off the books after 2011, you're then talking about 2 more years of an older Dunn, an older Soriano, and possibly an older Byrd in the 2012 season. That would be three key, high-priced players well into/ entering the decline years. Yikes.

I'm sorry, but the wise path is to try and cut our fat and not get fatter. We all know that our farm system as is has good potential, but is not at a point where we can truly improve by 2011 with youth alone. We need to make deals now w/ current vets to try and solidify our future from within, then add in 2011/2012 as needed and if this team is in contention again. I'd rather have money available next July or next December than spend out the *** for just Dunn.

poodski
07-12-2010, 02:20 PM
The way I look at it is that he's the type of player that you go and make room for. As for teh second thing, I don't remember that ;):whistle:

But how you gonna make room for him? He plays LF we already have a LF'er. He has said in the past he doesnt want to play CF, and I don't want to sign him for that anyhow because of the last time we tried to convert one to CF it didn't work out well.

So basically to me its moving Soriano to RF. So Byrd has to stay and play CF.

Then what do we do about 1B? Do we put Colvin there? Resign Nady? Hoff?

Plus what do you do about Fukudome obviuosly even to move him we are covering at least some of his salary.

For 2011 we already have 103 Million on the books that includes Fukudome though. So we maybe cover 7.5 million of that so take 7 million off. Thats 96 million already.

That 96 million also only covers 8 players. One of those being Samardjiza. We can assume Theriot is gone. Marmol, Marshall, Soto, Gorzy all figure to be making quite a bit. Lets say 10 million between those 4. So we are now up to 106 million only covering 11 spots (assuming Shark is in AAA)

Then you got Fonty, Baker, Hill and Guzman. All those are making at least 750K right now. Probably looking at 5 million between those 4. 111 million to cover 15 spots.

We can probably assume that at least 7 or so spots will be covered by Castro, Wells, Cashner, Colvin and a few minimum wage relievers. So thats another 3 million so 114 covering 22 spots. So basically three spots left. 26 million or so available, think we can get Dunn and Crawford for that? Actually might be possible.

Though 2B would still be a black hole.

windycityD
07-12-2010, 02:25 PM
Something to think about, and I'm not sure how important this really is when considering signing Dunn, but within the next couple years, we could see an infield of Vitters, Hak Ju, and Castro. Now do we want a guy like Dunn being the one in charge of saving throwing errors from those young players? I have no idea how good he is at scooping balls, but I'm sure he's no DLee.

But since Vitters is struggling big time at AA and Lee is still in Peoria, maybe that's not even that important to consider. Just throwing it out there.

IMHO, at best, Lee will be a utility middle IF. He could be a good one, though. He has the speed, the glove, and seems to be a fundamentals player. We could use that down the pike, all on the cheap. Time is well on his side.

As for Vitters, the jury is still out but the clock is ticking more based on his position(s). Clearly, now-next July is a critical developmental period for him and us. When we start dealing later this month, we have to get back either an upside 3b or 1b spec as insurance. We have nothing much else at either position organizationally.

poodski
07-12-2010, 02:26 PM
IMHO, at best, Lee will be a utility middle IF. He could be a good one, though. He has the speed, the glove, and seems to be a fundamentals player. We could use that down the pike, all on the cheap. Time is well on his side.

I think Lee could be Elvis Andrus as soon as next year. I told Doog what I would do earlier. It was pretty out there, but I think it would be the best for the team.

Though Bud Bleachers certainly wouldnt like it.

Jilly Bohnson
07-12-2010, 02:33 PM
But how you gonna make room for him? He plays LF we already have a LF'er. He has said in the past he doesnt want to play CF, and I don't want to sign him for that anyhow because of the last time we tried to convert one to CF it didn't work out well.

So basically to me its moving Soriano to RF. So Byrd has to stay and play CF.

Then what do we do about 1B? Do we put Colvin there? Resign Nady? Hoff?

Plus what do you do about Fukudome obviuosly even to move him we are covering at least some of his salary.

For 2011 we already have 103 Million on the books that includes Fukudome though. So we maybe cover 7.5 million of that so take 7 million off. Thats 96 million already.

That 96 million also only covers 8 players. One of those being Samardjiza. We can assume Theriot is gone. Marmol, Marshall, Soto, Gorzy all figure to be making quite a bit. Lets say 10 million between those 4. So we are now up to 106 million only covering 11 spots (assuming Shark is in AAA)

Then you got Fonty, Baker, Hill and Guzman. All those are making at least 750K right now. Probably looking at 5 million between those 4. 111 million to cover 15 spots.

We can probably assume that at least 7 or so spots will be covered by Castro, Wells, Cashner, Colvin and a few minimum wage relievers. So thats another 3 million so 114 covering 22 spots. So basically three spots left. 26 million or so available, think we can get Dunn and Crawford for that? Actually might be possible.

Though 2B would still be a black hole.

I think Fukudome will be gone within the month, the only question is how much money are we sending with him. The Cubs want Colvin to play everyday and probably don't want him on the bench. So let's just assume that happens. Maybe not safe but I think the odds are good.

Then as far as aligning the outfield if we got Crawford, I would think he wouldn't mind moving from one corner to the other. But even if we did, we know Soriano would move. Say what you will about him but he's been a great team player in his time here.

After that, we need to play Colvin every day. If they're confident in him with the bat going into next year, we have some options. Move Byrd and play Colvin in CF, or move Colvin to 1b for a year or so while we figure things out. And if he doesn't play well then that obviously makes it easy, send him to AAA and wait for him to push his way back to the majors.

And I agree with you on the salary situation. That money should be enough for Crawford plus another guy. Hell, maybe sign Beltre and move Aramis to first? There's a lot of options and we have a good bit of free money. Even more if we move one of the Carlos's.

windycityD
07-12-2010, 02:38 PM
I think Lee could be Elvis Andrus as soon as next year. I told Doog what I would do earlier. It was pretty out there, but I think it would be the best for the team.

Though Bud Bleachers certainly wouldnt like it.

Next year? Next Sept & onward, maybe. What he could bring to the table is very valuable for a manager. Speed has it's upside late in games and any guy that can glove at SS and 2b will have work in this game and a place on the active roster.

poodski
07-12-2010, 02:49 PM
Next year? Next Sept & onward, maybe. What he could bring to the table is very valuable for a manager. Speed has it's upside late in games and any guy that can glove at SS and 2b will have work in this game and a place on the active roster.

yeah I think he can very much put up a 2009 like Andrus season as early as next yaer possibly 2012.

He already has a major league glove, his bat isnt going to be great by any means, but when he does get on base he can steal.

he wont have the power Andrus did last year, but I think he could put up a -10 bat line with +15 defense, and +5 baserunning. At SS that isnt bad.

windycityD
07-12-2010, 03:03 PM
yeah I think he can very much put up a 2009 like Andrus season as early as next yaer possibly 2012.

He already has a major league glove, his bat isnt going to be great by any means, but when he does get on base he can steal.

he wont have the power Andrus did last year, but I think he could put up a -10 bat line with +15 defense, and +5 baserunning. At SS that isnt bad.

...which means what for Castro, 2b?

Lee does not have to hit for power or high avg, nor will he ever likely do that. He needs to continue to learn how to get on base, bunt for hits, hit the other way, etc.

semperfi
07-12-2010, 03:07 PM
...which means what for Castro, 2b?

Lee does not have to hit for power or high avg, nor will he ever likely do that. He needs to continue to learn how to get on base, bunt for hits, hit the other way, etc.

I don't get why some speedy guys that lack good contact skills don't do this more. You never know what is going to happen when you put the ball in play. And when you start doing it more, you can start pulling the bat back and slapping it over the corner infielders.

poodski
07-12-2010, 03:11 PM
I don't get why some speedy guys that lack good contact skills don't do this more. You never know what is going to happen when you put the ball in play. And when you start doing it more, you can start pulling the bat back and slapping it over the corner infielders.

Exactly. Juan Pierre has 166 bunt hits in his career, and is successful 34.3% of the time.

So while a .686 OPS isnt great, its still getting on base .343 plus with a guy like Pierre who also steals at 75% rate he can really get some value.

semperfi
07-12-2010, 03:54 PM
Exactly. Juan Pierre has 166 bunt hits in his career, and is successful 34.3% of the time.

So while a .686 OPS isnt great, its still getting on base .343 plus with a guy like Pierre who also steals at 75% rate he can really get some value.

Does that include sacrifice bunts?

ggross
07-12-2010, 04:33 PM
Exactly. Juan Pierre has 166 bunt hits in his career, and is successful 34.3% of the time.

So while a .686 OPS isnt great, its still getting on base .343 plus with a guy like Pierre who also steals at 75% rate he can really get some value.

% successful bunts are always overrated in my opinion. It doesn’t consider bunts foul (or missed contact) on the first pitch or two. Surprise factor goes away, so we winds up swinging away. That hurts his average since he gave up a strike or his now hitting behind in the count. It doesn’t count towards an unsuccessful bunt, but it was a factor in many of his outs.

windycityD
07-12-2010, 04:43 PM
I don't get why some speedy guys that lack good contact skills don't do this more. You never know what is going to happen when you put the ball in play. And when you start doing it more, you can start pulling the bat back and slapping it over the corner infielders.

Lee would absolutely need to be able to do that, learn to bunt for hits. As importantly, he'd need to be a .370+ OBP player. The glove and speed are both there.

poodski
07-12-2010, 04:55 PM
Lee would absolutely need to be able to do that, learn to bunt for hits. As importantly, he'd need to be a .370+ OBP player. The glove and speed are both there.

I cant see a world in which Lee is a 370 OBP guy. Just my opinion though.

I dont think he needs to be one though. 340 would suffice. Hell the average leadoff hitter in the majors right now has a 330.

Doogolas
07-12-2010, 05:18 PM
Fangraphs disagrees with your numbers on all of them dude. Go look them up there, their K% are all what I put. I have no idea where you're getting your numbers. We're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one JB. I just don't see how you can conclusively say these guys age poorly. Cause as far as I can tell they age just fine.

windycityD
07-12-2010, 05:27 PM
I cant see a world in which Lee is a 370 OBP guy. Just my opinion though.

I dont think he needs to be one though. 340 would suffice. Hell the average leadoff hitter in the majors right now has a 330.

Learn the strike zone, work counts, take walks, bunt for hits. You do that and a .370 OBP is not an impossibility for a player like that. We're all assuming speed is his best asset. To complement that, he needs to become a guy who gets on base & does all the above. He could be that kind of player imho.

Jilly Bohnson
07-12-2010, 06:24 PM
Fangraphs disagrees with your numbers on all of them dude. Go look them up there, their K% are all what I put. I have no idea where you're getting your numbers. We're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one JB. I just don't see how you can conclusively say these guys age poorly. Cause as far as I can tell they age just fine.

I get mine from BR, which uses PA's, while Fangraphs uses ABs.

And now they age just fine? I thought they aged extremely well?

Mell413
07-12-2010, 07:35 PM
I'm starting to get used to the idea of getting Adam Dunn to play first. At the moment we don't have anyone that can rival Pujols or Votto and getting Dunn would give us someone that is somewhat on their level. Also barring some unexpected hot streak we would only have to give up a 2nd round pick to sign him.

I doubt he gets the 4 years some people here are suggesting. I'd imagine if he didn't get a four year deal before he turned 30 I doubt he would get one now.

BcEuAbRsS
07-12-2010, 08:49 PM
How bout Nick Swisher? New York is targeting Crawford and Werth... if they land both of em Swisher should become available...

Doogolas
07-12-2010, 08:51 PM
I get mine from BR, which uses PA's, while Fangraphs uses ABs.

And now they age just fine? I thought they aged extremely well?

Age extremely well as in, they don't fall apart? Jesus, you read way too much into my comment if that was your problem with it dude. They age well. He'll likely last until 35 or so and be a very good player.

So sorry, I take back what I said. They age well. Can we come to that consensus cause if I was wrong you certainly were too. They don't age poorly either.

jodydavis
07-12-2010, 09:31 PM
I think we COULD compete as early as 2012, but the biggest problem I see is no lock down starting pitchers now, or in the system. Our offense sucks too but I think that can be fixed. The problem I see is there is no real #1 or #2 starter on the team or in the minors in waiting. We have a bunch of solid 3-5 starters currently on the roster or in the minors.

Jilly Bohnson
07-12-2010, 09:33 PM
Age extremely well as in, they don't fall apart? Jesus, you read way too much into my comment if that was your problem with it dude. They age well. He'll likely last until 35 or so and be a very good player.

So sorry, I take back what I said. They age well. Can we come to that consensus cause if I was wrong you certainly were too. They don't age poorly either.

So aging extremely well is the same as not falling apart terribly?

And you didn't show anything. You brought up Jim Thome and a bunch of big guys with who don't K too terribly much and acted like that was proof. Poodski made your argument much better than you did, and even he only brought up like 5 names.

It's just extremely annoying how you're always butting in and calling out people in the middle of an argument for some minor factual inaccuracy. It's annoying as hell when the shoe's on the other foot isn't it?

Doogolas
07-12-2010, 09:58 PM
So aging extremely well is the same as not falling apart terribly?

And you didn't show anything. You brought up Jim Thome and a bunch of big guys with who don't K too terribly much and acted like that was proof. Poodski made your argument much better than you did, and even he only brought up like 5 names.

It's just extremely annoying how you're always butting in and calling out people in the middle of an argument for some minor factual inaccuracy. It's annoying as hell when the shoe's on the other foot isn't it?

Wait butting in? How was I butting in on this one? I gave my opinion on what I felt we needed to do very, very early in this thread. You are the one that jumped in and called me an idiot for it. And I only threw out a few names because this just isn't that big a deal in terms of proving a point to me. I tried to say we'll have to agree to disagree like 30 posts ago and you responded by telling me what I said was one of the most ridiculous things you've ever heard.

And honestly I'm not annoyed at anything. You made a pretty good point. For whatever reason you've been super obnoxious for no reason, but whatever. And for the last... very long while I haven't been jumping on anyone about very much of anything. But whatever dude. :shrug:

Captain Obvious
07-12-2010, 10:03 PM
Well, Fielder isn't a lock as a 6 win player, he's been a six win player one time. And if Dunn is actually a below average to neutral fielder he's just as likely to be a six win player as Fielder is.

So really you just want A-Gon. And the chances of getting him are not exactly high since every team will want him and he'll cost far more than Dunn will. Holding out hope for one guy just seems like a gamble that's almost certainly going to be lost. IIRC Fielder and Gonzalez are FA after 2011 right? I just don't like the idea of holding out that they won't resign and will come here. I think you at least have to try for Dunn this year and if you don't get him go hard for them next year.

I didn't say he was a lock, I said he has the potential. Big difference there. And Dunn is not as likely to have a 6 win season as Fielder. Fielder is way better with the bat. As a matter of fact, I'd rather have Fielder over Gonzo.


Lee would absolutely need to be able to do that, learn to bunt for hits. As importantly, he'd need to be a .370+ OBP player. The glove and speed are both there.

He did a good job at bunting when I saw him about a month ago... actually, exactly a month ago. I was impressed with what I saw.

BDawk4Prez
07-13-2010, 10:50 AM
How bout Nick Swisher? New York is targeting Crawford and Werth... if they land both of em Swisher should become available...

Somewhere BMD just came, if he is able to that is.

behindmydesk
07-13-2010, 11:04 AM
Somewhere BMD just came, if he is able to that is.

I would have done the fukudome for swisher deal with the sox

IRNMN
07-13-2010, 12:21 PM
Wow I wish I would have seen this thread when it started. I think the Cubs can comptete next season again, but in reality the Cubs will truly contend two years from now. I think guys like Zambrano, Dempster, and Lilly find their ways out of Chicago and make room for the future IE Cashner, Jackson, Carpenter, ill say McNutt, and Adkins. Its rare to have a home grown rotation, but I think the Cubs farm could pull it off. Now the problem is I don't know if Casher will be legitimate #1 or a strong number two forced in to being the ace. So I would expect the Cubs to add and ace and then knock either McNutt or Adkins out of there.

The IF has prospects at all positions expect for 1B. The OF will deffinatly have Brett Jackson in my opinion and probably Tyler Colvin. Soto behind the plate. Build some pen arms around Marmol, Marshall, etc.

Next season or the tail end of this year will be seeing who is legit. The Cubs need to see where there guns are and maybe some sell high guys are. I would say right now the keepers from the current team/farm would deffinatly be Jackson, Castro, Cashner, Jackson, Marmol, Marshall, Soto, Lee(SS), Vitters, Carpenter, and there a few guys I will wait and see on (Colvin, McNutt, Adkins, etc.). Build around these guys in the next year the Cubs could be real contenders assuming these guys can pan out.

poodski
07-13-2010, 12:37 PM
Next season or the tail end of this year will be seeing who is legit. The Cubs need to see where there guns are and maybe some sell high guys are. I would say right now the keepers from the current team/farm would deffinatly be Jackson, Castro, Cashner, Jackson, Marmol, Marshall, Soto, Lee(SS), Vitters, Carpenter, and there a few guys I will wait and see on (Colvin, McNutt, Adkins, etc.). Build around these guys in the next year the Cubs could be real contenders assuming these guys can pan out.

I think this is the biggest flaw in a "we must compete now" mentalitiy.

You ahve no time to see who is legit. If Colvin comes out next year and lets say he is given the starting RF job. If he struggles at all he has to go, because we cant sit through the struggles. If a rookie comes up and isnt an immediate success he will be sent back down and never given a shot. If we want anything from our rookies we need to give them time.

Jilly Bohnson
07-13-2010, 12:46 PM
Wait butting in? How was I butting in on this one? I gave my opinion on what I felt we needed to do very, very early in this thread. You are the one that jumped in and called me an idiot for it. And I only threw out a few names because this just isn't that big a deal in terms of proving a point to me. I tried to say we'll have to agree to disagree like 30 posts ago and you responded by telling me what I said was one of the most ridiculous things you've ever heard.

And honestly I'm not annoyed at anything. You made a pretty good point. For whatever reason you've been super obnoxious for no reason, but whatever. And for the last... very long while I haven't been jumping on anyone about very much of anything. But whatever dude. :shrug:

You didn't do it in this topic, but you do it all the time. That's why when I saw an opportunity to do it in this topic I did.

BDawk4Prez
07-13-2010, 12:51 PM
JB has really had his thong in a bunch lately.

Guess that's what losing will do to ya? :shrug:

IRNMN
07-13-2010, 01:03 PM
I think this is the biggest flaw in a "we must compete now" mentalitiy.

You ahve no time to see who is legit. If Colvin comes out next year and lets say he is given the starting RF job. If he struggles at all he has to go, because we cant sit through the struggles. If a rookie comes up and isnt an immediate success he will be sent back down and never given a shot. If we want anything from our rookies we need to give them time.

Yeah, I agree. I think that this kind of thing needs to happen, but I don't think with the current managment in place that this could happen. Hendry and all of his managerial hires has never given young players legitimate time for the most part.

Kirel
07-13-2010, 01:27 PM
Excluding Theriot, Fontenot, Soto, Prior, Murton, Cedeno, Marmol, Wells, Castro, two dfiferent Hills, and about 25 pen arms I don't care to list, they never do give young guys much of a shot.

I mean they really screwed with Pie!

semperfi
07-13-2010, 01:38 PM
Excluding Theriot, Fontenot, Soto, Prior, Murton, Cedeno, Marmol, Wells, Castro, two dfiferent Hills, and about 25 pen arms I don't care to list, they never do give young guys much of a shot.

I mean they really screwed with Pie!

Seriously, you listed Prior. :bla:

I agree with you though.

Kirel
07-13-2010, 02:00 PM
Seriously, you listed Prior. :bla:

I agree with you though.
He was young. Certainly highly regarded but if it's true that the Cubs managerial staff refused to play young players thatwould apply to the highly regarded ones just as well.

Milnertime
07-13-2010, 04:56 PM
He was young. Certainly highly regarded but if it's true that the Cubs managerial staff refused to play young players thatwould apply to the highly regarded ones just as well.
It's a pretty common thought that youngsters have no shot on the Cubs, and funnily enough it's not true.

However, you could say that the Cubs haven't been very good lately at keeping prospects who struggle around to go through their growing pains, or that they mess with something that was good enough and ruin it.

Pie, Rich Hill, and Murton are good examples of that under Lou Piniella. I don't think it's a stretch to say that under current management, they've had a pretty short fuse for prospects who don't do well right away. And just to clarify, I don't mean "well" in the sense of what someone like you and I would call "well." I mean it in the traditional baseball sense, more like the one that Piniella and Hendry base their judgments on.

Basically, I don't want this to turn into an argument about which rookies actually performed because, quite frankly, it's irrelevant.