Cubs 2020

[Balta1701]

6 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

What?

So the Cubs don't give a bad contract to Heyward if they don't give a good contract to Lester? What in the world.....?

No where does it say if you give good contracts, you're required to give bad 100+ million dollar contracts.

Please tell me the answer for how a team can sign only good contracts, because I haven't yet seen any team figure that out.

As far as I can tell, even the best teams signing guys at the mid-part of the free agent market have a 50% rate of outright busts, and in some years it is worse - in the 2017-2018 offseason, like 80% of the free agents who got contracts that were anywhere decent were guys that would have been out of a job a year later if the teams could get rid of them. 2019 looks a little better - only 1/2 the guys who signed contracts were completely useless, and that's about as good as it gets.

If you want to avoid any bad contracts, you don't get any good ones.

[Balta1701]

11 minutes ago, 35thstreetswarm said:

I agree that we'll have to make the same *types* of decisions that the Cubs did.  I just hope we'll make better ones.  I think the knock on the Cubs is they traded the wrong prospects (though tough to know if the deals would've been available at the time for different prospects) and signed the wrong free agents (e.g. Heyward).  Not that they should've just avoided trades and the free agent market altogether. 

And the Darvish example aside, it's not like there weren't better moves available at many points along the way - they likely could've had Verlander, for example.

If it were that simple, some team would have figured it out. The year Heyward signed with the Cubs, the White Sox strongly considered and may have had a comparable offer out for Alex Gordon to take over RF - the Royals paid him $72 million for <4 wins. It's only blind luck that the White Sox didn't sign that deal, as they had a comparable offer out for that player. You can't predict these flops in advance. If I were in the Cubs' position, I'd have done that exact same deal for Quintana unless I had some scout screaming to me that he's completely lost his stuff, and he sure didn't look like it at the time. 

If you don't understand that signing 4 guys for $60 million is likely to wind you up with 2 guys you're paying $15 million to who are completely worthless very quickly, then you're better off not signing anyone. If you don't understand that trading away a prospect has a good chance of having it bite you in the arse completely, you're better off not making those trades. And if you don't...then you miss out on the ones that work. 

[almagest]

Heyward was a good signing at the time. He provided 15-20% above league average offense in right field and was one of the best defensive outfielders around. I would've been super excited if the White Sox signed him. If he kept providing 3.5-6 bWAR per year that would be a great deal. That's the risk you take when signing top free agents though. You can slam the Cubs for not considering their future financial flexibility but they were pushing to win a world series and they had enough depth to absorb Heyward being a disappointment.

I'm curious how they haven't been able to offload his contract though. He's not old and could rebound with a change of scenery. If they ate some of that deal and didn't accept too much in return that could free up resources for more pitching. I guess no one wants him, though.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

1 hour ago, Balta1701 said:

Please tell me the answer for how a team can sign only good contracts, because I haven't yet seen any team figure that out.

As far as I can tell, even the best teams signing guys at the mid-part of the free agent market have a 50% rate of outright busts, and in some years it is worse - in the 2017-2018 offseason, like 80% of the free agents who got contracts that were anywhere decent were guys that would have been out of a job a year later if the teams could get rid of them. 2019 looks a little better - only 1/2 the guys who signed contracts were completely useless, and that's about as good as it gets.

If you want to avoid any bad contracts, you don't get any good ones.

I've seen plenty of sharp teams not waste endless amounts of money on Chatwood, Heyward, and Darvish. Those were three terrible signings. 

[Balta1701]

22 minutes ago, Tony said:

You keep talking about having to make "good and bad FA signings" because it just comes with the inherited risk, but you can lower those odds by not having to sign as many FA's if you draft well....something the Cubs really haven't been able to do, especially on the mound. Theo hasn't selected one guy that has contributed to the Cubs on the mound since 2012, when he took over.  That has helped closed their window quicker than anything else IMO. 

Overall, Theo has done a tremendous job during his tenure in Chicago, no one can really argue that. But the last few years have been rough, and he'd probably tell you the same thing. 

1. They also lost several draft picks, including their first 2 rounds in 2016, in order to sign free agents to push them over the top. Combine that with 2017 being at the bottom of the first round and you've got a state where that is likely to happen.

2. They also had a top 30 prospect on the mound, a guy named Dylan Cease, who would be in their rotation this year if winning "Right now" wasn't a priority to them in 2017 when they dealt that player away. That 2017 Cubs team was on a path to missing the playoffs before they traded away that guy, and they went on a run in the 2nd half. Which brings us right back to the point - even if you're drafting guys who will contribute, unless you're ok with being the Twins and knocked out of the playoffs a couple years in a row before players move on, that's the kind of aggressive move you have to make to put yourself over the top. I thought that the Quintana trade was a very smart one for Theo at the time, and I believe most of us did; pay a high price, but get a really strong pitcher under control for 4 years.

[35thstreetswarm]

It's funny, almost any trade can be justified by playing the "circumstances at the time" game, since all were made by baseball professionals and few trades are patently terrible on day 1.  Most trades, though, do end up getting evaluated by fans and organizations based on tangible results, i.e. what actually happens with the players.  Every manager on his way out the door can deploy a million persuasive ex ante rationalizations for all their "bad" moves -- fans are not usually willing to deploy the same reasoning in their favor, though, unless the team has built an insane amount of goodwill.  It sounds to me like the Cubs' performance during their fast-closing window was good enough to buy your blanket forgiveness for a while.  Fair enough, but I just don't think one title after an uber-hyped multi-year tank job will buy that much from most. 

Edited March 4, 2020 by 35thstreetswarm

[caulfield12]

14 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

If it were that simple, some team would have figured it out. The year Heyward signed with the Cubs, the White Sox strongly considered and may have had a comparable offer out for Alex Gordon to take over RF - the Royals paid him $72 million for <4 wins. It's only blind luck that the White Sox didn't sign that deal, as they had a comparable offer out for that player. You can't predict these flops in advance. If I were in the Cubs' position, I'd have done that exact same deal for Quintana unless I had some scout screaming to me that he's completely lost his stuff, and he sure didn't look like it at the time. 

If you don't understand that signing 4 guys for $60 million is likely to wind you up with 2 guys you're paying $15 million to who are completely worthless very quickly, then you're better off not signing anyone. If you don't understand that trading away a prospect has a good chance of having it bite you in the arse completely, you're better off not making those trades. And if you don't...then you miss out on the ones that work. 

Weren’t we associated with a Y.Cespedes trade or signing in there as well...?

Let’s look at the Rangers, for example.  They made some of the best FA pitching decisions of any team on the market, and still have come up way short because you can’t build an entire roster that way when younger prospects like Odor, Profar and Mazara are failing and veterans are close to retirement age.  Many have criticized the Padres for some of their signings like Hosmer, Myers and Machado...at a time when they had/have one of the top farm systems in the game.

At any rate, this is an argument that always comes back to teams like TB, Minnesota, Oakland, Milwaukee and Cleveland...who almost never make those $100+ million “over the top moves” because of risk mitigation.

 

 

Edited March 5, 2020 by caulfield12

[SoxAce]

Be careful washing dishes kids. 

[Harry Chappas]

If he was smart, this would be season ending. 

[Jack Parkman]

On 3/4/2020 at 12:22 PM, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

I've seen plenty of sharp teams not waste endless amounts of money on Chatwood, Heyward, and Darvish. Those were three terrible signings. 

Darvish wasn't a terrible signing. He was injured and had confidence issues due to the Astros cheating off of him in 2017. 

If the choice was Darvish vs. Arrieta I'd take Darvish 10/10 times. It wouldn't shock me if Darvish is just fine going forward for them. 

Don't discount the pressure of living up to a contract in a large market. Some can handle it, some can't. 

Edited July 2, 2020 by Jack Parkman

[Jack Parkman]

On 3/4/2020 at 1:35 PM, Balta1701 said:

1. They also lost several draft picks, including their first 2 rounds in 2016, in order to sign free agents to push them over the top. Combine that with 2017 being at the bottom of the first round and you've got a state where that is likely to happen.

2. They also had a top 30 prospect on the mound, a guy named Dylan Cease, who would be in their rotation this year if winning "Right now" wasn't a priority to them in 2017 when they dealt that player away. That 2017 Cubs team was on a path to missing the playoffs before they traded away that guy, and they went on a run in the 2nd half. Which brings us right back to the point - even if you're drafting guys who will contribute, unless you're ok with being the Twins and knocked out of the playoffs a couple years in a row before players move on, that's the kind of aggressive move you have to make to put yourself over the top. I thought that the Quintana trade was a very smart one for Theo at the time, and I believe most of us did; pay a high price, but get a really strong pitcher under control for 4 years.

We all thought that Quintana was going to be good for the Cubs. In retrospect, his 1st half of 2017 was a sign of what was to come but he was just coming off of 3 straight 4+ fWAR seasons. In July 2017, Quintana over Verlander was the smart choice, as Verlander had shown signs of wearing down. Verlander didn't find the fountain of youth until he got to Houston, and the difference between Verlander and Quintana's contracts are huge. Quintana is actually getting market value for the pitcher that he is currently, while Verlander is getting paid TOR money. 

Edited July 2, 2020 by Jack Parkman

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

2 hours ago, Jack Parkman said:

Darvish wasn't a terrible signing. He was injured and had confidence issues due to the Astros cheating off of him in 2017. 

If the choice was Darvish vs. Arrieta I'd take Darvish 10/10 times. It wouldn't shock me if Darvish is just fine going forward for them. 

Don't discount the pressure of living up to a contract in a large market. Some can handle it, some can't. 

Darvish will be 34 years old this year and hasnt been healthy in 3 years, and that was his only healthy season  since 2013. Yu seems like a good guy but it's an awful signing.

[Balta1701]

7 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Darvish will be 34 years old this year and hasnt been healthy in 3 years, and that was his only healthy season  since 2013. Yu seems like a good guy but it's an awful signing.

Wonder what the universe is like for him if the astros hadn’t cheated against him.

[soxfan49]

On 7/2/2020 at 12:43 PM, Jack Parkman said:

Darvish wasn't a terrible signing. He was injured and had confidence issues due to the Astros cheating off of him in 2017. 

If the choice was Darvish vs. Arrieta I'd take Darvish 10/10 times. It wouldn't shock me if Darvish is just fine going forward for them. 

Don't discount the pressure of living up to a contract in a large market. Some can handle it, some can't. 

So if he can't live up to it, it's a terrible signing.

[Dick Allen]

Cubs cancelled their convention for 2021. Will Soxfest 2021 be far behind?

[The Grinder]

On 7/2/2020 at 12:00 PM, SoxAce said:

Be careful washing dishes kids. 

The guy makes more $ in a week than I make in 2 yrs and hes washing dishes? Does the word dishwasher mean anything to you Jose? 

[pcq]

The long-delayed wedding between Comcast and Marquee was consummated in a midnight Vegas ceremony. You can find Marquee on Comcast 202. I am now receiving that channel but expect my bill will go up. 

[caulfield12]

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2020/7/24/21336960/cubs-comcast-marquee-sports-reach-a-deal

The Tribune's report does not say what — if any — cost will be passed along to Xfinity subscribers. Other providers carrying the channel have increased rates about $2 a month for customers with eligible packages to receive the channel.

Edited July 24, 2020 by caulfield12

[Balta1701]

that...is a good idea. Jose?

[caulfield12]

17 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

that...is a good idea. Jose?

He can give them spit cups?

[Harold's Leg Lift]

Nico Hoerner is a really good player.

[caulfield12]

From Greenberg: “According to preliminary overnight ratings, from a source, the Cubs did a 6.0 household rating (equivalent to 195,000 homes) between 6 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. Friday night, peaking with a 7 (225,000) around 8:30 p.m. That was the No. 1 viewed broadcast in that time slot in Chicago. (The White Sox game, according to a source, did a 3.1 [100,000 homes] on NBC Sports Chicago.)”

For context, the Cubs’ local average annual ratings in Chicago have ranged from 3.32 to 4.48 over the past five years – when the games were shared among NBC Sports Chicago and over-the-air options WGN and ABC. The last three years were right around 4.15. Moreover, the Cubs saw a pretty decent sized drop in their ratings from 2018 to 2019. So, yes, a 6.0 rating on Marquee – a cable-only channel – is enormous, even for an opener. I’d think the lack of sports content gave that even more of a boost.

https://www.bleachernation.com/cubs/2020/07/27/cubs-ratings-for-the-opener-on-marquee-were-expectedly-huge/

[ChiSoxFanMike]

It’s amazing how the Cubs still haven’t had to play a good team yet. They’re going to fall back to Earth hard once they have to play the Sox, Twins, Indians, and Cardinals.

[caulfield12]

Meanwhile, the Brewers started with 6 on the road, missed 4 against StL (so only 2/6 home games played, against SOX), 2 games at Chicago, 6 back at home, then a monster 10 game road swing again.

18 road games

8 home

Out of their first 26.   Plus they were on the shelf for 4 consecutive days, backing their schedule up to where they have almost no off-days and a number of DH's the rest of the season.

 

KBO

2. Kiwoom Heroes: 44-31 (4) -- The Heroes went 5-0, including a 22-7 rout of Samsung on Saturday, a run that coincided with the arrival of Addison Russell. The former Cubs All-Star went 10-for-25 with a homer, five runs and six RBIs in his first five KBO games.

Edited August 6, 2020 by caulfield12

[SoxAce]

6 hours ago, YouCanPutItOnTheBoardYES! said:

It’s amazing how the Cubs still haven’t had to play a good team yet. They’re going to fall back to Earth hard once they have to play the Sox, Twins, Indians, and Cardinals.

The Brewers suck?