Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 289 of 314 FirstFirst ... 189239279287288289290291299 ... LastLast
Results 4,321 to 4,335 of 4701
  1. #4321
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    186
    Quote Originally Posted by CP_414 View Post
    Lol. How do you still not get it?

    The surplus value the Cubs gave up is Darvish. We are evaluating his signing here not his trade. I didnít say the Cubs trade return was a home run. Iím agreeing with 1908 that his signing was a home run. I think the trade return is better than you seem to think it is, but this conversation is about his free agent signing with the Cubs in 2018.

    The Padres took on the Darvish money (other than $3 million) AND they gave up value on top of the money relief because Darvish is worth more money than Darvish is owed on his contract. He has surplus value on the contract the Cubs signed him to in 2018, so (hereís the big conclusion) the contract was good because Darvish is more valuable than the contract.

    Good lord. Thatís it for me.
    You dont get it.

    I've already addressed the FA signing. He was worth less on the field than he was paid on the Cubs. AKA not a homerun. I don't care what he becomes on the Padres. He could crash and burn and blow out his arm or he could be a bonified ace for the rest of his career. It's irrelevant to what he did with his time on the Cubs.

    With regards to the trade, the contracts are already taken into account with surplus value. The Padres evaluated the price of Darvish+Caratini+$3M in cash at half of its worth and the Cubs accepted. Thats not a homerun for the Cubs. Get a clue.

    The Cubs didn't hit a homerun with Darvish as a member of the team and they certainly didn't hit a homerun in trade value, they sold high and returned low.

    It's probably best you back out of this one.

    Beyond the obvious salary dump involved in the Darvish trade, there is also the very real possibility of GM's not evaluating Darvish as well as the models currently suggest he is. We are only talking about a 25 start stretch for a pitcher that everyone knows has had ace potential since he entered the league and has also shown that potential for periods of time in the past. However, he has also shown to be wildly inconsistent and prone to injury. He has been in the league for 8 years and only finished 4 complete seasons while missing one season completely, not counting last year.
    Last edited by cuzi; 02-17-2021 at 03:18 AM.

  2. #4322
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    57,729
    Cuzi, you're not factoring surplus value correctly for Yu Darvish, and this is the root of the issue when valuing what his surplus value is. I was only talking about the signing, so this is where we should be focusing. The trade return has little to do with what Darvish is signed for, and what Theo signed him for in 2018. The Cubs could have gotten back a trained poodle and a BOGO Big Mac Coupon and his surplus value would remain the same. But, if we want to factor that in, too, then you're also valuing the surplus value of the prospects the Cubs got back incorrectly.

    First, let's look at what the Cubs paid vs what they got. You are correct, the Cubs spent roughly $53m on Yu Darvish for 3 years. They got 5.7 fWAR back. The issue is you are underselling the price of a pitching win on the market at $8m. I used $8m as a hard and fast number for Heyward, but Heyward was a position played signed in 2015. By 2018, that win was $9.3m (source). I'm also using the "adjusted mark" as I think with the change to the QO, we should be factoring this in; it's apart of the FA market to determine to either accept or decline (and teams are factoring in getting or losing picks as well). So the result is the Cubs in 2018 paid for 5.8 fWAR. Darvish was worth 5.7 fWAR. It's a wash. Factor in that Darvish was easily outpacing his 2020 salary, that the Cubs almost assuredly got insurance money for his missed 2018, and that fractional fWAR are stupid to bicker over, it's a wash. The Cubs gained nothing, and lost nothing monetarily for an open market deal. They literally hit equilibrium, and this with a lost season.

    How much surplus is left in Darvish? He's owed $56m years and the Cubs are covering $3m of it. So, $53m left. At $9.3 fWAR on the free market per win in 2018, we get 5.8 fWAR over 3 years. To get to $31m of surplus (trust me, this number is important in a minute), that gives him almost another 3.5 fWAR of surplus value. So, he needs to be worth, on average, 3 fWAR per year. Considering he's 34-36 and his injury history, I think he'll probably get to that level, and probably beat it. If he has over $30m in surplus value left, he's a home run.

    So, the Cubs didn't lose on the valuation. Now, let's see what they got back in a trade, just to get on with that, too. I have no idea where your "$11.9" number is coming from. I'm going to go ahead and keep with the FG things as I'm partial to most of what they do, but the values of the Cubs return is much higher than $11.9m.
    Preciado - 50 fv
    Santana - 45 fv
    Mena - 40+/45 fv
    Caissie - 35+ fv
    Source, Longenhagen

    So, again, using the FG model we can come up with the Cubs receiving the monetary value back, let's figure out what their value is. First, we have Preciado. Longenhagen has no updated list for the top-100, but has stated he'll make the cut, so let's drop him in the bottom 10. That gives him roughly $19m of value. A 45 fv, off the top 100 is worth another $6m. I'll split the difference on Mena and give him $5m. Caissie comes in at $1. Total, we're looking at $31m in value.

    Where things get wonky is "what exactly are these players worth in a post-covid world"? I think prospects are being coveted above their value in the 2020-2021 free agent market, so I think present day value of these prospects is actually much higher than what they were (market determines surplus). How much are teams averse to spending? A ton, go look at the Arenado trade. How much would these players have increased their value if there had been an actual season? I think the lack of a season has really hurt our valuation of prospects. With no games, little eye-ball on these players, there's realistic chances these players are underrated (or possibly over). So take it all into account, and I think there's actually more surplus value than $31m in there and believe the trade is actually, fair all things considering.

    End result of the Darvish signing: The Cubs signed Yu Darvish to a 6 year contract as a SP. They got a near market equilibrium contract out of Darvish, which doesn't take into account the insurance money the Cubs almost assuredly recouped on his 2018 year. Whatever they got there, is literally the surplus value they received in three years. He's got plenty of surplus value left in the contract to be assumed, so Theo got his monies worth and then some here. If we want to get into the trade value they got back, than I think they got back fair market value trade, as teams are clutching prospects to their chest, and spending-real-money-averse and probably shifted this years "surplus value" to really weird and jacked up places. So the end result was a market value contract for 3 years, with 3 years left of what is good surplus value, and a market value return in a trade. That, is, what I would consider to be an absolute home run. They got fair value all around. They got stuck with zero bad money (when you sign 30+ SP's you assume the back end will be far worse than the front end). They took 4 prospects out of the deal, in what is probably the most difficult year on record to assess prospects, who total to what is probably an equal and fair value of his surplus factoring everything in. They put money in, got value out. That's what you're supposed to do.
    Last edited by 1908_Cubs; 02-17-2021 at 08:40 AM.

  3. #4323
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    186
    Even at the $9.3M/WAR that teams paid in the 2018 offseason alone, the Cubs barely eked out value equal to what Darvish was paid. That's not a homerun. That's a single.

    And the numbers for the trade values I was using came from baseballtradevalues at the time of the trade. Things have slightly changed on their website since then. Preciado has gone considerably up in surplus. Darvish has gone down a bit and Caratini has about doubled in value. Using their numbers today the trade would be about 25.6 surplus going to the Padres and 21.7 coming back. So it's not as lopsided as it was before at the time of the trade but its still not a homerun. It's more like a 102 mph fastball off the knee cap. You got on first but good luck running the bases.

    Nothing from the Cubs end in regards to Darvish was a homerun.
    Last edited by cuzi; 02-17-2021 at 10:04 AM.

  4. #4324
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,219
    Not to break up the discussion but was thinking last night about what non-moves that Theo didnít make that could have changed the projection of the franchise and I could think of a few but one stood out to me.
    At the time there was talk of the Cubs being in on adding both Lester and Scherzer in that offseason after 2014. They had the money and pretty much all their young position players were coming that year or were already in the majors. Thinking back if Theo added both that offseason then the franchise goes differently I think and that we would have won more than one World Series IMO.
    Adding scherzer to go with Lester sets our rotation for 5 years at that point.
    -That means no need for Darvish.
    -We donít sign Heyward and that meelstone of a contract.
    -We probably bring back Fowler on a 3/4 yr discount deal to play CF/RF
    Rotation is Lester/Scherzer/Arrieta/Hendricks/Holy ****
    -Probably donít deal for Quintana
    -Donít blow money on Chatwood.
    -Could have used Jimenez and Cease to get Yelich to play RF.
    -maybe could have Harper
    Itís just amazing that signing one guy could change the trajectory and flexibility of an organization so much. Yes Max was/is expressive but wow man, so many options if we would have given ďheywards moneyĒ to Scherzer. Wouldah couldah shouldah I know but thatís kinda depressing but interesting to ponder

  5. #4325
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    57,729
    Quote Originally Posted by cuzi View Post
    Even at the $9.3M/WAR that teams paid in the 2018 offseason alone, the Cubs barely eked out value equal to what Darvish was paid. That's not a homerun. That's a single.

    And the numbers for the trade values I was using came from baseballtradevalues at the time of the trade. Things have slightly changed on their website since then. Preciado has gone considerably up in surplus. Darvish has gone down a bit and Caratini has about doubled in value. Using their numbers today the trade would be about 25.6 surplus going to the Padres and 21.7 coming back. So it's not as lopsided as it was before at the time of the trade but its still not a homerun. It's more like a 102 mph fastball off the knee cap. You got on first but good luck running the bases.

    Nothing from the Cubs end in regards to Darvish was a homerun.
    You continue to mince my words. As I have stated, again, the original comment was contract only, not what the Cubs received for the contract. Thus far, the Cubs eeked out equal value on it. That included a completely missed year due to injury, and one they 99% recouped plenty of insurance money on. The last 3 years have to be worth 6 fWAR to equal value. He's probably going to average at least 3 fWAR, and possibly much more. There's a ton of surplus value in that contract. It's a ****ing home run.

    You keep trying to twist it into a discussion of what the Cubs traded the contract for, but it doesn't change what Darvish was signed for, but I'll oblige. Again. Using the BBTV values is also, horrendous. Use the numbers Craig Edwards and Eric Longenhagen worked on. First, Edwards is so good with WAR/$ he got hired by the union. Longenhagen is one of the best prospect evaluators out there. Their valuation is going to be hands about heads better than some trash baseball evaluation site that has a whopping 1.3 K followers on twitter. So who am I going to use? The twitter account with barely 1K more followers than me? Or the guy who got hired by the MLB union? Tough choice, i'nnit?

    The Cubs pulled $31m in surplus value on Darvish using the better numbers and the far more reliable evaluation data. While Darvish has more than $31m surplus value left in his contract (I think), I suspect, the market in 2020 is so ****ing jacked when it comes to teams who refuse to spend, and how teams are clutching to their prospect pools, that I think there's actually significantly more surplus value in how the market is handling prospects right now, as well. I think it's a pretty near push. The Cubs got as good as they gave here.

    You don't want to see it as a home run? Fine, whatever. I'm done with it, it will be my last response on the subject. I don't know what more it needs to be for you to be a home run. The Cubs signed a TORP to a well below current day market value contract (as highlighted by all of the likely surplus value left in that contract). Home run. That's what the comment was about. The trade value of what another man dealt him for, in what is probably very spurious conditions (an owner who set the budget so low the Cubs were essentially forced to trade him, in what was probably the absolute worst trade market for selling a player with any money attached) doesn't change what the original point was about; Theo Epstein's contract agreement with Yu Darvish. That said, if we're going to start twisting my original argument (it's my argument, I think I'd have a good idea what I was saying) and trying to argue about his trade value, I'll stand by my original analysis of that too; considering the situation, the Cubs pulled fine value for him. So if the Cubs got fine value, for a player who had plenty of surplus value remaining...then yes. It's a home run. The Cubs did everything you could ever ask for with Darvish. They got every penny they spent back, they signed him to a surplus contract, and they got the surplus value back in trade. They have no long term commitment to the pitcher. They now have 4 players back in a trade who equal, very close, to what that surplus value on Darvish is with enough upside in those players to easily outpace Darvish's surplus value in the future (though, I should mention, what these players do and do not come should not cloud our hindsight in 3-5 years of the Darvish trade. As I've said many times, I don't grade the Quintana trade on anything but at-the-time-value; I won't do any different here. If they have 4 generational talents, or 4 guys who never play MLB ball, the value in the offseason this year is all that matters in valuing the trade).
    Last edited by 1908_Cubs; 02-17-2021 at 10:29 AM.

  6. #4326
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    186
    Quote Originally Posted by 1908_Cubs View Post
    You continue to mince my words. As I have stated, again, the original comment was contract only, not what the Cubs received for the contract. Thus far, the Cubs eeked out equal value on it. That included a completely missed year due to injury, and one they 99% recouped plenty of insurance money on. The last 3 years have to be worth 6 fWAR to equal value. He's probably going to average at least 3 fWAR, and possibly much more. There's a ton of surplus value in that contract. It's a ****ing home run.

    You keep trying to twist it into a discussion of what the Cubs traded the contract for, but it doesn't change what Darvish was signed for, but I'll oblige. Again. Using the BBTV values is also, horrendous. Use the numbers Craig Edwards and Eric Longenhagen worked on. First, Edwards is so good with WAR/$ he got hired by the union. Longenhagen is one of the best prospect evaluators out there. Their valuation is going to be hands about heads better than some trash baseball evaluation site that has a whopping 1.3 K followers on twitter. So who am I going to use? The twitter account with barely 1K more followers than me? Or the guy who got hired by the MLB union? Tough choice, i'nnit?

    The Cubs pulled $31m in surplus value on Darvish using the better numbers and the far more reliable evaluation data. While Darvish has more than $31m surplus value left in his contract (I think), I suspect, the market in 2020 is so ****ing jacked when it comes to teams who refuse to spend, and how teams are clutching to their prospect pools, that I think there's actually significantly more surplus value in how the market is handling prospects right now, as well. I think it's a pretty near push. The Cubs got as good as they gave here.

    You don't want to see it as a home run? Fine, whatever. I'm done with it, it will be my last response on the subject. I don't know what more it needs to be for you to be a home run. The Cubs signed a TORP to a well below current day market value contract (as highlighted by all of the likely surplus value left in that contract). Home run. That's what the comment was about. The trade value of what another man dealt him for, in what is probably very spurious conditions (an owner who set the budget so low the Cubs were essentially forced to trade him, in what was probably the absolute worst trade market for selling a player with any money attached) doesn't change what the original point was about; Theo Epstein's contract agreement with Yu Darvish. That said, if we're going to start twisting my original argument (it's my argument, I think I'd have a good idea what I was saying) and trying to argue about his trade value, I'll stand by my original analysis of that too; considering the situation, the Cubs pulled fine value for him. So if the Cubs got fine value, for a player who had plenty of surplus value remaining...then yes. It's a home run. The Cubs did everything you could ever ask for with Darvish. They got every penny they spent back, they signed him to a surplus contract, and they got the surplus value back in trade. They have no long term commitment to the pitcher. They now have 4 players back in a trade who equal, very close, to what that surplus value on Darvish is with enough upside in those players to easily outpace Darvish's surplus value in the future (though, I should mention, what these players do and do not come should not cloud our hindsight in 3-5 years of the Darvish trade. As I've said many times, I don't grade the Quintana trade on anything but at-the-time-value; I won't do any different here. If they have 4 generational talents, or 4 guys who never play MLB ball, the value in the offseason this year is all that matters in valuing the trade).
    That "trash" evaluation site doesn't evaluate prospects. They evaluate numbers based on history and using data collected from other websites, fangraphs being one of them.

    And I'm not twisting anything. I didn't even bring up the trade. I initially only brought up what the Cubs paid Darvish and what they got in return. It's not a homerun.

    The fact that the Cubs only got lottery tickets in return for such a stacked surplus contract is proof enough of the risk involved in the deal from the Padres perspective. Darvish could pitch really well and he could just as easily be as inconsistent as ever or even worse pitch 2 innings and blow out his arm again and never pitch again.
    Last edited by cuzi; 02-17-2021 at 10:49 AM.

  7. #4327
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    12,718
    Quote Originally Posted by 1908_Cubs View Post
    You continue to mince my words. As I have stated, again, the original comment was contract only, not what the Cubs received for the contract. Thus far, the Cubs eeked out equal value on it. That included a completely missed year due to injury, and one they 99% recouped plenty of insurance money on. The last 3 years have to be worth 6 fWAR to equal value. He's probably going to average at least 3 fWAR, and possibly much more. There's a ton of surplus value in that contract. It's a ****ing home run.

    You keep trying to twist it into a discussion of what the Cubs traded the contract for, but it doesn't change what Darvish was signed for, but I'll oblige. Again. Using the BBTV values is also, horrendous. Use the numbers Craig Edwards and Eric Longenhagen worked on. First, Edwards is so good with WAR/$ he got hired by the union. Longenhagen is one of the best prospect evaluators out there. Their valuation is going to be hands about heads better than some trash baseball evaluation site that has a whopping 1.3 K followers on twitter. So who am I going to use? The twitter account with barely 1K more followers than me? Or the guy who got hired by the MLB union? Tough choice, i'nnit?

    The Cubs pulled $31m in surplus value on Darvish using the better numbers and the far more reliable evaluation data. While Darvish has more than $31m surplus value left in his contract (I think), I suspect, the market in 2020 is so ****ing jacked when it comes to teams who refuse to spend, and how teams are clutching to their prospect pools, that I think there's actually significantly more surplus value in how the market is handling prospects right now, as well. I think it's a pretty near push. The Cubs got as good as they gave here.

    You don't want to see it as a home run? Fine, whatever. I'm done with it, it will be my last response on the subject. I don't know what more it needs to be for you to be a home run. The Cubs signed a TORP to a well below current day market value contract (as highlighted by all of the likely surplus value left in that contract). Home run. That's what the comment was about. The trade value of what another man dealt him for, in what is probably very spurious conditions (an owner who set the budget so low the Cubs were essentially forced to trade him, in what was probably the absolute worst trade market for selling a player with any money attached) doesn't change what the original point was about; Theo Epstein's contract agreement with Yu Darvish. That said, if we're going to start twisting my original argument (it's my argument, I think I'd have a good idea what I was saying) and trying to argue about his trade value, I'll stand by my original analysis of that too; considering the situation, the Cubs pulled fine value for him. So if the Cubs got fine value, for a player who had plenty of surplus value remaining...then yes. It's a home run. The Cubs did everything you could ever ask for with Darvish. They got every penny they spent back, they signed him to a surplus contract, and they got the surplus value back in trade. They have no long term commitment to the pitcher. They now have 4 players back in a trade who equal, very close, to what that surplus value on Darvish is with enough upside in those players to easily outpace Darvish's surplus value in the future (though, I should mention, what these players do and do not come should not cloud our hindsight in 3-5 years of the Darvish trade. As I've said many times, I don't grade the Quintana trade on anything but at-the-time-value; I won't do any different here. If they have 4 generational talents, or 4 guys who never play MLB ball, the value in the offseason this year is all that matters in valuing the trade).
    Exactly.

  8. #4328
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,415
    Iíd just like to say I think I was the only person in here to mention Brandon workman lol


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. #4329
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    186
    Preciado came in at 133 on fangraphs top prospect list, not breaking the top 100 as promised. That makes him only worth about $9M instead of $19M, based on fangraphs model. Coincidentally, subtracting the extra $10M from Preciado we were assuming he was getting puts it right in line with the "trash" websites valuation they put on the deal based on numbers pulled from fangraphs. Interesting.
    Last edited by cuzi; 02-17-2021 at 11:05 AM.

  10. #4330
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Addison, IL
    Posts
    24,794

    2016 World Series Champions!!!


  11. #4331
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Addison, IL
    Posts
    24,794

    2016 World Series Champions!!!


  12. #4332
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,219
    Quote Originally Posted by CubsRule08 View Post
    Bet the orioles are jealous...suckers 😂

  13. #4333
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    13,501
    Quote Originally Posted by CubsRule08 View Post
    Awesome! With a rotation full of guys who all have a velocity around Kyle Hendricks territory and with this bullpen, this team is going to have the most weirdly constructed rotation and bullpen in Baseball history.

  14. #4334
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    7,621
    I can see it already
    Cubs offense explode, with the core guys leading the way and the patched up pitching does just enough to lead this team to another Division championship.



    Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

  15. #4335
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    186
    Quote Originally Posted by chibears55 View Post
    I can see it already
    Cubs offense explode, with the core guys leading the way and the patched up pitching does just enough to lead this team to another Division championship.



    Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk
    It's not out of the realm of possibilities. The division still sucks even with the Cardinals getting Arenado because the rest of their lineup sucks and their pitching is mediocre at best. The Cubs are predicted to win like 79 wins and the Cardinals sit at the top of the division at like 81.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •