Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, April 19, 2021

Report: Javy Báez Declined Cubs’ Offer ‘Somewhere in Range of $180 Million’

I’ve been steadfast in refuting the report that Kris Bryant turned down an extension offer of “well north of $200 million,” so I want to tread carefully when it comes to the latest report about Javier Baez‘s negotiations. Or rather, his past negotiations. We do know via multiple outlets, one of which was Javy himself, that the shortstop was engaged in extension talks last spring prior to the shutdown. We also know that he did himself no favors with an abysmal 2020 performance.

According to Buster Olney, who wedged the info into a larger column for ESPN+, that disappointing campaign “followed a negotiation that concluded with him passing up a Cubs’ offer somewhere in the range of $180 million.” In Javy parlance, that’s a large number. So large, in fact, that it seems pretty difficult to believe in light of the organization’s spendthrift ways when it comes to position-player spending over the last several years.

Even before they slashed payroll and reportedly low-balled Anthony Rizzo, and even when Javy was still viewed as a potential perennial MVP candidate, $180 million would have been a stretch. My attempt at predicting a deal back in January of 2020 came to $136 million over six years ($22.67M AAV) with a max of $160 million over eight years ($20M AAV). Olney didn’t give a length on the deal in the two paragraphs devoted to the topic, but I’m thinking it had to be eight or nine years ($20-22.5M AAV).

 

RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: April 19, 2021 at 07:15 PM | 47 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: cubs, javy baez

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Walt Davis Posted: April 19, 2021 at 09:05 PM (#6014331)
Right, pretty useless without years info (deferment info would also be nice but usually not a big deal). I simply don't put stock in reports of "Team offered player $X million" for that reason. If the reporter doesn't have enough sense to ask "over how many years?" and/or the source won't/can't say, then it's just fluff.

Granted, I can't see a $180 M deal that would make sense unless there was enough deferment to bring the NPV equivalent to the range the author gives. Or the Cubs have even more faith in Javy's ability to endure as a top defender into his mid-30s than I do.

Going back to the Bryant rumor, if memory serves we didn't have years with that rumor either nor we were told when the offer was made. We got that rumor sometime late 2018 or early 2019. Bryant started 2018 like the young stud he'd been to that point. Then he got hurt, came back and did OK for a couple of weeks, got hurt and missed 5-6 weeks and didn't perform to his standards for Sept. Coming into 2018, he'd just set the record for 1st-year arb, might well have made $25-30 M in his last arb year then something like what Rendon got later. Something like 8/$200 would have been "fair" for that guy and maybe he should take it to offset the injury/collapse risk. But for all we know it was 10/$200.**

Now if the Cubs offered him $200 M after the injury/slump, he should have taken it. He was really good in 2019 but about 1 WAR below where he'd been. Then 2020 was terrible. He's started off great (just 4 HR in 147 PA last year, already 5 in just 58 this year ... but Rfield hates his defense so far so the WAR is not good) ... anyway, Rendon money might still be possible if he keeps this up. If the Rfield is correct then he lost the defensive gamble and a move to 1B or LF is near and a 130-140 OPS+ aging LF is certainly worth something even big enough for Snapper to retire on but not close to 7/$245.

** I wonder if Mike Trout messed up everybody's expectations. I assumed Trout was gonna cruise past $40 AAV pretty easily, maybe even get $45. If Trout was making $40-45, it becomes a lot easier for Mookie to ask for $38, Bryant (as he was then) $35, etc. Once Trout locked in at $37, what is everybody else supposed to do? (Not that I'd have had the guts to turn down that offer.) Anyway, that extension was signed March 2019 so in March 2018, I might have viewed that Cubs offer as a bit of a lowball.
   2. The Duke Posted: April 19, 2021 at 09:18 PM (#6014334)
I’m of the impression, based on the Darvish deal, that the Cubs are aiming for 3-5 years out as their next window. I’d be very surprised if anyone other than Contreras is signed. Most of the rest won’t be useful in 3-5 years.
   3. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: April 19, 2021 at 09:49 PM (#6014339)
I tend to agree. I can see being a bit wary of Baez with his plate discipline issues, but it seems like they could have inked Rizzo to a deal by now, and if they haven't, that kinda tells me they intend a rebuild.
   4. Tom Nawrocki Posted: April 19, 2021 at 10:11 PM (#6014348)
I would rate them, in the order I'd be interested in signing them, Contreras - Baez - Bryant - Rizzo. I think they could have signed Rizzo by now, but I wouldn't find much fault if they just don't want to.
   5. Rough Carrigan Posted: April 19, 2021 at 11:35 PM (#6014366)
#1, yup. It's like the car dealer asking how much you want to pay per month and when you tell him he says that you can afford the car. Like a 36 month payment plan is the same as an 84 month plan.
   6. Walt Davis Posted: April 20, 2021 at 12:52 AM (#6014371)
Even on "who would you sign?" ... for how many years at what money (and it's not my money). I'd have no problem signing Rizzo for 3 years so I can probably be talked into 4. I have no problem signing Javy as a defense-only SS who bangs out enough HRs not to embarrass everybody ... not sure what that goes for these days but Andrelton only got a 1/$10 deal this offseason so probably not a lot. I'm not so sure about the Cubs re-signing Contreras since Amaya is one of their top prospects (not that he's very top).

But yes, the Darvish deal also had me assuming we were going full rebuild. The acquisition of Davies in that deal had me wondering if they were going full rebuild this past offseason or making a last run. They were hoping to make a last run it seems but it's not going well. So they're currently looking at the fall-back of trade everything with the big question being will they trade Hendricks (assuming he can get his ERA under 6). Heck, they should probably trade Contreras this week before the bat goes cold.

You'd be hard-pressed to script a worst start for the Cubs and this is a team that once started 0-14 (1997). Yet we're only 6-9 and it's not like we have to catch the Dodgers. And half the starting lineup now have OPS+ of 100 or better!

Ahhh, the 97 Cubs, who can forget? Me fortunately. Grace was Grace, Orie didn't embarrass himself, Sammy did which turned out to be a good thing. The staff was sorta decent enough but it turned out the starting middle IF of 37-yo Sandberg and 34-yo Dunston was not a good idea. It's obvious once I think of what year he started but I never would have guessed Sandberg was still around in 97. Back when I thought Tyler Houston was gonna be good -- I have a bad tendency to think all LHB Cs are at least average.

Y'know, once upon a time, I made this comparison:

Javy 21-26: 270/310/484, 106 OPS+, obscene K-rate
Sosa 21-26: 256/308/455, 106 OPS+, what we thought was an obscene K-rate

Sammy had another good year at 27, embarrassed himself a bit at 28, busted out big time at 29. Javy embarrassed himself at 27 (2020) and probably won't have another 2018-19 this year but it's early. If he's gonna turn into Sammy age 29, the Cubs should pony up the dough now.
   7. Walks Clog Up the Bases Posted: April 20, 2021 at 01:58 AM (#6014374)
The only thing I remember about that losing stretch to start the 1997 season was that it mostly ended because they played a double-header and the laws of average seem to work out to teams often splitting those.
   8. dejarouehg Posted: April 20, 2021 at 08:08 AM (#6014383)
anyway, Rendon money might still be possible if he keeps this up.


I don't like to bet against Boras' extraordinary ability to find one incredibly dumb owner, but I will on this. If Bryant hits 40 HR and has a season worthy of a top-10 MVP candidate, it would still be unimaginable. I hope he stays with the Cubs (or goes to the Mets).

It was interesting to hear Boras' promotional evaluation of Bryant on the Cubs Talk podcast back in December. He always sounds delusional to me, but I'll take his track record. Would love for Bryant to have a huge year. If he did, would be interesting to see where the interest is besides the Mets.

As for Baez, even though ARod is the ultimate bloviator, his analysis of Javy was frightening. He doesn't catch up with major heat any more and to do so would require a sizable alteration in his mechanics. He's jumped out of the elite class and for the last (fill in the blank) seasons has turned into a 7-hole hitter.

I'd rather spend money on Story.

Regardless, the Shortstop FA situation - absent any union action - will be an interesting game of musical chairs and there are going to be some very upset players. (And Steve Cohen will learn just how much he overpaid.)

   9. I Am Not a Number Posted: April 20, 2021 at 08:37 AM (#6014388)
it seems pretty difficult to believe in light of the organization’s spendthrift ways

Isn't spendthrift the opposite of thrifty?
   10. Lassus Posted: April 20, 2021 at 08:52 AM (#6014391)
I hope he stays with the Cubs (or goes to the Mets).

Not if you ever want him to hit even 30 HR in a season ever again.
   11. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: April 20, 2021 at 10:20 AM (#6014408)
If he's gonna turn into Sammy age 29,
...he's gonna need to do what Sammy did, which was (a) learn to lay off breaking pitches in the LH batter's box, and (b) the special-edition Flintstones vitamins. I'll let others speculate as to which is more likely.
   12. Moses Taylor hashes out the rumpus Posted: April 20, 2021 at 11:22 AM (#6014414)
I’m of the impression, based on the Darvish deal, that the Cubs are aiming for 3-5 years out as their next window. I’d be very surprised if anyone other than Contreras is signed. Most of the rest won’t be useful in 3-5 years.

Contreras is easily the least likely to be re-signed/extended at this point*. He's older Baez and just a few months younger than Bryant (he's also younger than Rizzo); he'll be 30 years old as a FA at catcher (so 33-35 in your timeline of their next window); catcher is also an org strength for the Cubs.

*Perhaps a pre-arb extension would have made sense after 2017 or 2018, but at this point he's probably better off going to FA after next season.
   13. dejarouehg Posted: April 20, 2021 at 03:21 PM (#6014465)
Interesting article, even though it's ESPN and baseball

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/31291281/scouts-opposing-pitchers-why-cubs-hit
   14. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: April 20, 2021 at 03:44 PM (#6014471)
Are current bat speeds available anywhere?
   15. Walt Davis Posted: April 20, 2021 at 06:36 PM (#6014488)
On Bryant and $$: "might be possible" is about as weak a claim as can be made. But still, he's on a 50-HR, 50-Rbat pace (the defense dragging the WAR down, we'll see what teams think). If he keeps this up, he'll repeat 2016 and he'll be on 33 WAR in 6 full seasons of PT with one injured season and a terrible 150 PA in 2020 dragging that down.

Rendon had 30 WAR in 6 full seasons. He entered FA on an excellent 4 year run though but that was a 4-year run of 22 WAR, the same 5.5 WAR per full season that Bryant will average with a really big year. Bryant won't have the excellent 4-year run though and I agree that will very, very likely keep teams from going nuts ... but on the other hand, it just takes one team to decide that he's finally healthy and back to being the "real" KB. I never expected Rendon to get 7/$245.

On Javy vs. Story: Sure, on the same/similar contract, I'll take Story too. Are they going to get the same/similar contract offers? If Javy doesn't fix his bat this season then he's not gonna get big years/money. Even if he does, I'm not sure he's looking at big offers.

On Javy vs Sammy: C'mon, did I really need to put a smiley face on the proposition of Javy turning into Sammy 1998?

I'll be as clear as I can. If Javy turned down anything within a light year of $180 M AFTER his 2020, he's a fool. If he turned down something like $180 M after 2019 then he probably made a mistake (but let's see the detail to make sure). If the Cubs offered Javy anything like $180 M after 2020, they are fools; after 2019, probably fools.

And given at the moment he has a 45% K-rate, I don't care if it does somehow add up to a 100 OPS+, they would be fools to offer him "big" years/money now. He's THIS close to being oafball's Jose Hernandez. That's still a perfectly useful player as long as the defense remains strong but you'd probably do just as well grabbing (the next?) Nick Ahmed.

But if he can get the K-rate back down to 28% and put up numbers like 2018-19 for the rest of the year, then we can talk about a "big" contract that's not big.
   16. cardsfanboy Posted: April 20, 2021 at 07:25 PM (#6014497)
Just curious for a Cubs fan perspective, preferably an optimistic Cub fan, does it feel like they are pulling back from the promise of the Theo running era of looking for more than just a short term fix, and a promise for long term sustainability? From a Cardinal fan perspective, we were a bit terrified that the Cubs will become the "Red Sox" of the NL Central, where even if there is a great team like the Yankees at the head, they would still go 20 years of constantly showing up.... and now from a Cardinal perspective, it really feels like it's the Brewers who took that second spot. (and yes I realize that the Cubs won the division last year, and have had averaged a better record than the Cardinals the last three to five seasons, but from my perspective it feels like it's a short window for them)
   17. Dag Nabbit at ExactlyAsOld.com Posted: April 20, 2021 at 07:53 PM (#6014506)
does it feel like they are pulling back from the promise of the Theo running era of looking for more than just a short term fix, and a promise for long term sustainability? From a Cardinal fan perspective, we were a bit terrified that the Cubs will become the "Red Sox" of the NL Central

Ultimately, Theo never quite created the pipeline of talent he intended to. They had a nice core glut come up, but they had trouble finding talent in the draft out of the first round, and they traded away some pieces as well. So the farm system went from having a bunch of guys come up who contributed to .... quite a bit less than that.
   18. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: April 20, 2021 at 08:33 PM (#6014512)
If Javy turned down anything within a light year of $180 M AFTER his 2020, he's a fool.

The reports are that he turned it down in Spring Training 2020.

   19. cardsfanboy Posted: April 20, 2021 at 09:03 PM (#6014518)
wrong thread
   20. Arch Stanton Posted: April 20, 2021 at 09:20 PM (#6014522)
About the 1997 team: I'll never forget it, because I got a Cubs tattoo above my ankle in March 1997, and then...0-14. At one point, a friend (and fellow Cubs fan) said, "If they keep losing, I'm gonna cut that off your leg with a ******* knife."

He was laughing, but not really.

So, the two most important Cubs wins of my life are:

1. 2016 World Series, Game7
2. 1997, game #15, which may have saved me from major surgery
   21. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: April 20, 2021 at 09:55 PM (#6014560)
Baez is currently 0-3 with 3 Ks tonight. He’s now struck out in more than half his at-bats (30/59) this season.
   22. Walt Davis Posted: April 21, 2021 at 12:31 AM (#6014588)
#16: Dag's spot on. No emerging talent means short window. I don't know how much credit Theo deserved on the draft/develop side but during his tenure with the Red Sox, they pretty regularly produced talent with later-round picks. The Theo Cubs were the exact opposite. (Picking late in the 1st round due to winning pretty much means you're never going to add elite 1st-round talent.) The international signings never really paid off either.

Beyond that ... Russell regressed as a hitter and a human being. If Russell is still a 3-4 WAR SS (and a nice human being) then Javy is a good 2B ... or maybe a good 3B with Bryant moving to LF/RF, etc. Bryant declined (or was very lucky his first few seasons). Virtually nobody who did advance improved -- Schwarber, Almora, Happ, pitchers. So there seems to be something wrong at the ML level too.

I had regularly pointed out that the Cubs had a full lineup plus a bench player or two under 30 and controlled through at least this year. That core (minus Fowler) won it all in 2016 and was very good offensively, you'd think that would improve or at least certainly not decline through their collective prime. They declined or stagnated. So we have to consider that 2016 was more of a fluke than we Cub fans would like to think. (Such seasons are always kinda fluke-y, there was nowhere to go but down.)

The pitching was always going to be an issue around 2020 and beyond -- Arrieta gone (and lost his mojo anyway), Lester old, etc. So if no young, cheap pitching emerged and no young hitting emerged then there was never going to be a way the Cubs would pay all those positions players and pay 2-3 stud FA pitchers.

So all we were missing was a Buehler, a Muncy, a Bellinger coming through and then maybe we'd have purcchased a Mookie. Simple as that. :-)
   23. Brian C Posted: April 21, 2021 at 12:54 AM (#6014590)
Not a conversation that anyone really wants to have, but it also seems to be the case that Maddon got a lot more out of this offense than Ross seems to be able to. Could be that Maddon jumped ship at the exact right time, but might also be the case that managers still matter some and Ross sorta sucks.
   24. bunyon Posted: April 21, 2021 at 07:15 AM (#6014592)
It's probably not fair as a not very close observer of the Cubs but, to me, it seemed like the entire organization, from the very top to rookie A ball, reacted to the championship in the worst possible way. Like it was a foregone conclusion they'd all stay excellent and win more. Which seemed likely but requires enormous work. They seemed to cruise.

That could (and probably is) just post event rationalization but it was how it came off to me. Probably in large part due to Bryant and Maddon, who seemed to get a little un-Maddon like by the end. It just seems hard to have that much regression/stagnation in an organization without something cultural amiss. I mean, it could be bad luck but that's a lot of bad luck. On the other hand, Cubs.
   25. Froot Loops Posted: April 21, 2021 at 10:25 AM (#6014616)
I had regularly pointed out that the Cubs had a full lineup plus a bench player or two under 30 and controlled through at least this year. That core (minus Fowler) won it all in 2016 and was very good offensively, you'd think that would improve or at least certainly not decline through their collective prime. They declined or stagnated. So we have to consider that 2016 was more of a fluke than we Cub fans would like to think.


The Cubs offense scored 808 runs in 2016. They followed that up by scoring 822, 761 and 814 in the following three seasons. The real fluke in 2016 was on the pitching/defense side of the ball (and it was mostly defense).
   26. Dag Nabbit at ExactlyAsOld.com Posted: April 21, 2021 at 11:06 AM (#6014629)
The Cubs offense scored 808 runs in 2016. They followed that up by scoring 822, 761 and 814 in the following three seasons. The real fluke in 2016 was on the pitching/defense side of the ball (and it was mostly defense).

I wouldn't call the 2016 Cubs defense a fluke. That was the one season where they had Russell & Baez. Yeah, Baez was mostly utility duty - but he was great everywhere. Both were on the team in 2017 all year, true - but Russell was injured for much of the year and at other points off his game badly. Also, 2016 had a great defensive performance from Ross. (Random thing: I looked through a bunch of Bill James handbooks one time and the 2016 Cubs were the only team over a 10-15 year period to have 10+ times a catcher picked a runner off first. That's Ross).

Fluke? Well, I guess you could say it's a fluke that Ross played as well defensively as he did. Or even Baezt, too - that might be his best defensive season. But "your best defensive players having their best work" isn't what comes to mind when I hear fluke.

But yeah, the big edge they had that year was five dependable starting pitchers. 2016 proved to be Lackey's last good season. Age starting catching up to Lester in 2017 as well. Arrieta's window as a peak pitcher came to a close. Hendricks? He was just way over his head in 2016. They were lucky their staff all came together for that one year - and also a little unlucky that they all fell at the same time in 2017. I mean, you'd think at least one would hold up better FIP for the pitchers, 2016-2018
Lester: 3.41 - 4.10 - 4.39
Arrieta: 3.52 - 4.16 - 4.25
Hendricks: 3.20 - 3.88 - 3.78
Lackey: 3.81 - 5.30 - (retired)
Hammel: 4.48 - 4.37 - 4.55

Hammel's FIP held up, but he moved to a team with a much worse defense. The guy the Cubs signed to replace him (Brett Anderson) was an unmitigated disaster and eventually Theo/Jed did the Eloy deal with the ChiSox.

Looking at the offense:

NL R/G by year (and Cubs R/G in parathesis)
2016: 4.44 (4.99)
2017: 4.58 (5.07)
2018: 4.38 (4.67)
2019: 4.78 (5.02)

So the offense was about as good in 2017 as it was in 2017, adjusting for context (there is no meaningful shift in park factor from year-to-year). The offense stagnated a bit the next two years.
   27. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: April 21, 2021 at 11:54 AM (#6014643)
Even with the great defensive talent the 2016 Cubs had, their defensive production was at their 95 to 100 percentile outcome. They just had a year where everything came together, and randomly got a lot of balls that worked in their favor.

One problem was the expectation/hope that such production was sustainable.
   28. Tom Nawrocki Posted: April 21, 2021 at 12:03 PM (#6014649)
Cubs BABIP allowed in recent years:

2014: .308
2015: .290
2016: .257
2017: .288
2018: .287
2019: .303

That's why I say the flukiest thing about the 2016 team was the defense.
   29. Jesus Luzardo Maraschino Posted: April 21, 2021 at 12:36 PM (#6014659)
So all we were missing was a Buehler, a Muncy, a Bellinger coming through and then maybe we'd have purcchased a Mookie. Simple as that. :-)


That or kept Gleyber and Eloy. No high caliber pitching prospects will catch up with you though.
   30. Moses Taylor hashes out the rumpus Posted: April 21, 2021 at 03:22 PM (#6014765)
So the offense was about as good in 2017 as it was in 2017

You don't have to adjust anything to come to that conclusion. :)
   31. Voodoo Posted: April 21, 2021 at 03:24 PM (#6014767)
Also, 2016 had a great defensive performance from Ross. (Random thing: I looked through a bunch of Bill James handbooks one time and the 2016 Cubs were the only team over a 10-15 year period to have 10+ times a catcher picked a runner off first. That's Ross).

Fluke? Well, I guess you could say it's a fluke that Ross played as well defensively as he did.


I suspect that Ross' excellent defensive numbers, particularly in dealing with the running game, was almost entirely a function of being Lester's personal catcher. Lester couldn't/wouldn't throw to first so a) Ross had way more opportunities to do so than a normal catcher and b) Lester's much-publicized struggles in that regard led to opposing runners making more reckless decisions (which very seldom seemed to work out for them, if memory recalls).
   32. Walt Davis Posted: April 21, 2021 at 07:12 PM (#6014820)
I realize it was confusing given the rest of my rant, but in saying maybe 2016 was flukey, I meant as a whole, not the offense per se.

Ross played brilliantly to counter Lester's struggles. Fowler had a "big" Rfiled year that year (relative to his usual).

On the offense, it's fair to note its stability but that was a bit of a drop from 2nd in scoring in 2016-17 to 4th then 5th. Still, that's stable but it was a very young offense in 2016 and Schwarber was coming back, Contreras would be the main C and surely Heyward couldn't be THAT bad in 2017 so there was some reason to hope for improvement (but Fowler was leaving). Again, with Baez at 2B in place of Zobrist, the oldest guy in the Cubs' 2017 starting lineup was 27.

And you can have your facts but I'll still have my impression that the stability of overall production from year-to-year was the product of that frustrating 1 step forward, 2 steps back that the young Cub hitters seemed to go through.

2017: Russell and Schwarber fell off, but Contreras maintained and Javy and Almora were both around 100 OPS+
2018: Javy broke out, Happ was OK and Schwarber bounced back (but not a star) but Russesll got worse, Contreras was off, Bryant was off, Almora fell off
2019: Generally good but Russell and Almora fell apart, Happ fell apart then put himself back together
2020: Pretty much a disaster for everybody but Happ and Heyward (OK, Willson certainly wasn't a "disaster")
2021: 13th in scoring

On Cubs getting complacent ... maybe, certainly some press suggestions along those lines, but they did win 92 and 95 games so it's hard to say they weren't taking things seriously. For whatever reason (and I don't think there's an obvious ones), good teams that stand pat regularly disappoint. Even having good players leave seems beneficial ... or course assuming that you somehow replace them with other good players. The success of the Cubs prospects pretty much locked them into a stagnant roster on that side of the ball. There was plenty of turnover in the pitching though and Theo certainly replaced them with what looked like good pitchers so I dunno if that was a factor.

We'd also feel (feel) a lot different about all of this if the Cubs hadn't lost their lead in Sept 2018 and spit the bit in Sept 2019. Every team except the 2020-21 Dodgers has faults but having all our faults on full display in two straight Septs left a really bad taste.
   33. Brian C Posted: April 21, 2021 at 07:28 PM (#6014823)
We'd also feel (feel) a lot different about all of this if the Cubs hadn't lost their lead in Sept 2018 and spit the bit in Sept 2019. Every team except the 2020-21 Dodgers has faults but having all our faults on full display in two straight Septs left a really bad taste.

That's true, too. From the perspective of Opening Day 2017, this Cubs team seems disappointing. But from the perspective of Opening Day 2015, things look pretty good, on the whole.

I guess my disappointment now is that things look pretty not-great both at present and going forward. And are Hoyer and Ross the right guys in place to get things back on track? Seems like an open question.
   34. Walt Davis Posted: April 21, 2021 at 08:59 PM (#6014839)
By the way, apparently the Cub pitchers finally got a hit sometime recently so they stand at 1-21 with 16 Ks and a BB -- I hope whatever pitcher gave them a walk is back in the minors.

are Hoyer and Ross the right guys in place to get things back on track?

I'm not sure Ross is gonna matter after this season. The next 2-3 years look to be abysmal and I suspect he'll mainly be managing cheap vet retreads and "prospects" equivalent to Josh Vitters and Brett Jackson so I'm not sure it will even matter much if he's good with young talent. I think his main job in 2022-23 is going to be making sure Amaya learns the position.

Whether Jed is the right guy for his job is a big question and I have no idea.
   35. cardsfanboy Posted: April 21, 2021 at 09:49 PM (#6014848)
#16: Dag's spot on. No emerging talent means short window. I don't know how much credit Theo deserved on the draft/develop side but during his tenure with the Red Sox, they pretty regularly produced talent with later-round picks. The Theo Cubs were the exact opposite. (Picking late in the 1st round due to winning pretty much means you're never going to add elite 1st-round talent.) The international signings never really paid off either.


That is somewhat what I was talking about, people talk about the Cardinals devil magic or whatever, where they get a war or two from some 30th round stubby clapp type of player when they need it, or turn a guy like a 13th round pick like Matt Carpenter into an all star player etc... This is the devil magic that Cardinal fans were afraid was going to happen, and to be honest is something that the Theo era promised would happen for the Cub's. That they weren't just building for today, but changing the organization so that players would hit their higher percentile potential.

I think that the promises of the Theo era, long term improvement for the Cubs organization, just hasn't been realized... whether it takes a decade for that thought process to take hold might be the truth, or whether the Cubs gave up on it too soon might end up being a different truth. (I made fun of the Padres because they kept trying to be the new best thing when it came to philosophy for baseball, and they struck out so many times in how they were doing it, and we'll see, maybe the 3rd time of using their strategy will actually work....I'm hoping for them, because I think they are a very progressive organization, even if they haven't always hit on a winning strategy)


Ultimately I like to see well run organizations that aren't sabotaging themselves, and sometimes I feel like the Cubs are doing that, as if the left hand isn't talking to the right hand.
   36. Brian C Posted: April 21, 2021 at 10:13 PM (#6014855)
I'm not sure Ross is gonna matter after this season.

Possibly true but that's a depressing answer.

Meanwhile, after falling behind 2-0 and getting no-hit through the first 3 innings - basically, standard Cubs baseball this season - the Cubs managed to put up 10 runs in the next 2 innings on only 1 XBH. Didn't see that coming. And that XBH was a weak grounder up the middle that Contreras turned into a double as the Mets defense stood around watching.

And now as I write this, Baez hits a slam so 14 runs on 2 XBH. Point stands.
   37. The Honorable Ardo Posted: April 22, 2021 at 06:11 AM (#6014890)
The Cubs offense scored 808 runs in 2016. They followed that up by scoring 822, 761 and 814 in the following three seasons.

Let's look again at the 2016 champions.

They had Rizzo (age 26) and Bryant (age 24) anchoring the lineup.
Jason Heyward (also 26) was epically bad on offense that season (.230/.306/.325!) and had to improve.

Then they had the young core:
Age 24 - Contreras, Soler
Age 23 - Baez, Schwarber
Age 22 - Russell, Almora
Age 21, though he didn't debut until 2017 - Ian Happ

So the expectation for 2017 was, "Yes, the pitching will regress, but this could be a historically great, 900+ run offense", especially since we all thought Schwarber (after tearing through the minors and two seasons of postseason heroics) would be an offensive force, joining Rizzo and Bryant in the heart of the order with a 140 OPS+ or thereabouts. That didn't happen - either in 2017 or in the subsequent years.
   38. Brian C Posted: April 22, 2021 at 09:00 AM (#6014900)
So the expectation for 2017 was, "Yes, the pitching will regress, but this could be a historically great, 900+ run offense", especially since we all thought Schwarber (after tearing through the minors and two seasons of postseason heroics) would be an offensive force, joining Rizzo and Bryant in the heart of the order with a 140 OPS+ or thereabouts.

The expectation was to jump 100 runs from an already NL-best offense? I agree that there were a lot of reasons to be optimistic heading into 2017, but that sounds like a talk-radio overbid.
   39. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: April 22, 2021 at 11:01 AM (#6014911)


Meanwhile, after falling behind 2-0 and getting no-hit through the first 3 innings - basically, standard Cubs baseball this season - the Cubs managed to put up 10 runs in the next 2 innings on only 1 XBH. Didn't see that coming. And that XBH was a weak grounder up the middle that Contreras turned into a double as the Mets defense stood around watching.


The Mets defense seems like it can turn any team into a high-scoring offense.
   40. jingoist Posted: April 22, 2021 at 04:43 PM (#6014967)
This post might be slightly off target, but it was germinated in my brain by previous posters comments regarding Ross and Joe Madden.
Namely, who does the collective bbtf community think are the current top 3 or 5 managers working in mlb?
And no; I don’t expect to see Tony LaRussa’s name listed.
   41. bethoglin Posted: April 22, 2021 at 05:47 PM (#6014975)
I learned absolutely everything about my question when I read this post, thanks to the author for the detailed description. I wrote my review on the freeessaywriter.net review you can go in and read. Thank you very much for your attention and your time.
   42. dejarouehg Posted: April 22, 2021 at 10:34 PM (#6015021)
This post might be slightly off target, but it was germinated in my brain by previous posters comments regarding Ross and Joe Madden.
Namely, who does the collective bbtf community think are the current top 3 or 5 managers working in mlb?
And no; I don’t expect to see Tony LaRussa’s name listed.


For me, it's Counsell, Cora, Melvin, Francona
   43. Howie Menckel Posted: April 22, 2021 at 11:54 PM (#6015036)
For whatever reason (and I don't think there's an obvious ones), good teams that stand pat regularly disappoint.

as a youngster, I disliked one Opening Roster differing from the next - no matter how a season went.

still didn't like it as a young man.

but once you literally travel their travels, you get it.

professional athletes, to me, are no less loyal to work colleagues than anyone else. it's just that they always need a unique - to quote Bruce - "Reason to Believe" if they are to succeed, on a more urgent basis.

why are they going to win again? not just because they want that.
look at repeat-ers - it's not the same roster. they bring somebody in that was not there before - somebody crucial - and you need to win because you buy into that teammate. and if he hasn't won, neither has that team.

it's not a 100 pct angle, but it's closer than most believe. every athlete knows - even moreso with a streak-breaker like the Cubs - that their exploits are immortal. their grandchildren's "money will be no good," as we Irish say, in Wrigleyville for as long as they live.

athletes always need to be hungry - and this Cubs core, not so much.

I'm sure there have been other MLB teams between that late 1960s Cubs core and the current one where the team made the same mistake - but it does remind me of my youth. and it doesn't really matter if the core won a title, or not.

change is essential, in professional sports.
   44. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: April 23, 2021 at 04:41 AM (#6015040)
athletes always need to be hungry - and this Cubs core, not so much.


That's why to win the Super Bowl, the Buccaneers needed to bring in new, hungry players who had never tasted a championship, folks like Tom Brady, Rob Gronkowski, and Antonio Brown.
   45. Ron J Posted: April 23, 2021 at 08:04 AM (#6015042)
#44. Exceptions don't disprove the general rule.The 1969-71 Orioles made no significant changes and held up pretty well. (We don't talk about 1972)

First, what Bill James used to call the whirlpool effect is very real. Team record are drawn forcefully to .500. James came up with the Law of Competitive Balance to help explain it. First of all teams with excellent records tend to have some key players over their head and they tend to regress (some actually maintain the new higher level, but regression to established norms is the way to bet on the individual level) and successful teams also tend to cut some less effective players some slack. We won with him is a powerful force.

And second, the example players you cited are bad examples. Brady is an unusually competitive player with things to prove at a personal level (I wonder if an unusually competitive team leader isn't a key factor in bucking the trend. I'm wary of this as it strikes me as one of those "Just so Story" explanations common in sports). Brown had plenty to prove (and wasn't what you'd call a key factor). Gronk? Best I can tell he's just wired differently. I'd hesitate to apply general rules to him.

I don't think you have to change things up to be continually successful, but I do think it's hard for teams to be objective about where they are after a successful season.
   46. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: April 23, 2021 at 10:46 AM (#6015053)
#44. Exceptions don't disprove the general rule.


When the general rule includes 'always', they do. ;-)
   47. Jose Is An Absurd Balladeer Posted: April 23, 2021 at 11:26 AM (#6015059)
This post might be slightly off target, but it was germinated in my brain by previous posters comments regarding Ross and Joe Madden.
Namely, who does the collective bbtf community think are the current top 3 or 5 managers working in mlb?
And no; I don’t expect to see Tony LaRussa’s name listed.




For me, it's Counsell, Cora, Melvin, Francona


Francona is the no-brainer for me.

I think Rocco Baldelli is excellent.

The World Series decision was asinine but on the whole I think Kevin Cash has been tremendous

I probably wouldn't have mentioned Craig Counsell if he hadn't been mentioned but yeah he's been really good.

For some reason I've always thought Bud Black was a good manager. His record isn't great but from afar I think he's gotten the best out of what he's had.

Alex Cora I don't know yet. He had one great season, one absolutely horrible season (I think the 2018-2019 Sox were both 95 win teams that over/underachieved by about 10 wins) so I'm not willing to anoint him yet.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
phredbird
for his generous support.

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogBaseball Reference Adds Negro Leagues Statistics, Rewriting Its Record Book
(177 - 11:00pm, Jun 22)
Last: Never Give an Inge (Dave)

NewsblogYour job's a joke, you're broke, your love life's OMNICHATTER! for June 22, 2021
(37 - 11:00pm, Jun 22)
Last: AT-AT at bat@AT&T

NewsblogNBA 2021 Playoffs+ thread
(1950 - 10:56pm, Jun 22)
Last: Rally

NewsblogI Am Breaking My Silence About the Baseball Player Who Raped Me
(3 - 10:48pm, Jun 22)
Last: Obo

NewsblogMajor League Baseball's crackdown on sticky substances begins with regular checks on pitchers Monday
(1 - 10:12pm, Jun 22)
Last: John Northey

NewsblogToronto Blue Jays' Alek Manoah suspended five games for throwing at Baltimore Orioles' Maikel Franco
(3 - 10:10pm, Jun 22)
Last: John Northey

NewsblogArizona Diamondbacks' losing streak over at 17 with win over Milwaukee Brewers
(9 - 6:34pm, Jun 22)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 6-22-2021
(7 - 5:29pm, Jun 22)
Last: EddieA

NewsblogOT Soccer Thread - In Which Euro 2020 Is Played in 2021
(251 - 4:44pm, Jun 22)
Last: AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale

Sox TherapyAnd Breathe
(33 - 2:30pm, Jun 22)
Last: Jose Is An Absurd Balladeer

NewsblogEmpty Stadium Sports Will Be Really Weird
(13256 - 12:47pm, Jun 22)
Last: Never Give an Inge (Dave)

NewsblogSo no one told you OMNICHATTER! was going to be this way, for June 21, 2021
(33 - 8:36am, Jun 22)
Last: Never Give an Inge (Dave)

NewsblogCollege baseball pitcher Sang Ho Baek dies after complications from Tommy John surgery
(19 - 1:17am, Jun 22)
Last: Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams)

NewsblogRays call up top prospect Wander Franco
(6 - 9:07pm, Jun 21)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogThe story of honoring Negro League history and a search for buried treasure
(1 - 8:31pm, Jun 21)
Last: Starring Bradley Scotchman as RMc

Page rendered in 0.5198 seconds
48 querie(s) executed