Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Bird in a Blender
Nov 17, 2005

It's amazing what they can do with computers these days.



Heyward turning into a pumpkin the minute he got to Chicago definitely dragged the team down. Reminded me of the Soriano contract.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

R.D. Mangles
Jan 10, 2004




Soriano had some good years in Chicago. The point of being a big market team is that the Heyward contract shouldn't be ruinous, they can just bring in another guy and if Heyward is upset about becoming a 4th outfielder than eat the contract and trade him, the cubs have functionally unlimited money.

KDdidit
Mar 2, 2007





Grimey Drawer

I hated the Quintana trade. For years I made fun of the Sox fans who trumpeted Quintana's advanced stats despite him losing all the time. Yeah yeah, W-L doesn't mean anything, but I doubt any team ever said uh-oh we're going against Quintana today. Amusingly enough he finished with a winning record with the Cubs.

For years there were always the murmurs about once the TV deal was up they were really going to rake it in and get that sweet Dodgers TV $. I don't know if Crane Kenny and the business guys actually believed that, as even a dumb fan like me saw the writing on the wall that well would dry up by the time they got to end of the deal. They also bought all that property around the park in a sellers market so I don't doubt that hurt them financially. That being said, it doesn't give them an excuse to be cheap, but I think they made some equally bad financial decision off the field at least equal to the JHey contract.

R.D. Mangles
Jan 10, 2004




Lol https://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/cubs/cubs-jed-hoyer-regrets-blaming-core-players-failed-extensions

Mustached Demon
Nov 12, 2016



R.D. Mangles posted:

Soriano had some good years in Chicago. The point of being a big market team is that the Heyward contract shouldn't be ruinous, they can just bring in another guy and if Heyward is upset about becoming a 4th outfielder than eat the contract and trade him, the cubs have functionally unlimited money.

Soriano hit a lot of leadoff dingers and that was fun.

Bird in a Blender
Nov 17, 2005

It's amazing what they can do with computers these days.



I didnít mean to say that Soriano was as bad as Heyward, but it was definitely a huge contract for not nearly enough production.

Kirios
Jan 25, 2010





So some perspective:

Alfonso Soriano - 7 years, 8.2 bWAR. Contract was 8 years, 136 million. In 2013 he was traded back to the Yankees for basically free.
Jason Heyward - 6 years, 9.7 bWAR. Contract is 8 years, 184 million and runs through 2023.

I think they're both awful contracts but I'd argue the Heyward one is worse due to the money being significantly higher and happening during the peak of Cubs contention. The Cubs weren't great during the Soriano contract and didn't hurt them too much, while the Heyward contract clearly hamstrung them (Note: Really shouldn't have, Cubs are a rich franchise luxury tax is a joke blah blah blah) and prevented them from making some critical changes elsewhere. The Quintana trade obviously was a very poor one in hindsight but at least is somewhat defensible. The Heyward signing, in my opinion, is the worst thing the Cubs did during their window.

R.D. Mangles
Jan 10, 2004




Kirios posted:

So some perspective:

Alfonso Soriano - 7 years, 8.2 bWAR. Contract was 8 years, 136 million. In 2013 he was traded back to the Yankees for basically free.
Jason Heyward - 6 years, 9.7 bWAR. Contract is 8 years, 184 million and runs through 2023.

I think they're both awful contracts but I'd argue the Heyward one is worse due to the money being significantly higher and happening during the peak of Cubs contention. The Cubs weren't great during the Soriano contract and didn't hurt them too much, while the Heyward contract clearly hamstrung them (Note: Really shouldn't have, Cubs are a rich franchise luxury tax is a joke blah blah blah) and prevented them from making some critical changes elsewhere. The Quintana trade obviously was a very poor one in hindsight but at least is somewhat defensible. The Heyward signing, in my opinion, is the worst thing the Cubs did during their window.

This guy is forgetting about The Speech.

Kirios
Jan 25, 2010





Look man I only focus on facts and logic. There's no conclusive data on sWAR out there.

Edit: Fun article from 2019:

https://www.cubshq.com/cubs-baseball/update/espn-ranks-jason-heywards-contract-the-worst-on-cubs-25892

""I know Cubs fans would put this No. 1." ESPN.com. "It's not. Heyward isn't as useless as some of the players listed here, but the length of the deal and the remaining dollars certainly are an issue. He eats up a large chunk of the payroll, and that could have ramifications down the road -- say in 2022 when Kris Bryant and Javier Baez become free agents."

GoatSeeGuy
Dec 26, 2003

What if Jerome Walton made me a champion?




Quintana was valuable at the time of the deal based mostly on his contract- 200ish innings of 3.50 fip for 8-10 million is an absolute steal, and costs accordingly. Prospect hugging wasnít as fierce as it is now and most people making GBS threads on the deal are enjoying the benefit of hindsight. He just turned into a pumpkin like Hayward and fell off a loving cliff. Soriano was coming off a monster outlier year, and while the hops were fun a smarter front office would have known what they were buying. 6 of those WAR came in his first two seasons then splat.

When the Red Sox won the World Series by blowing past the ďdonít call it a salary capď luxury tax their total bill was all of $12 million. Thatís the price you pay for not developing enough cheap stars, itís not much of a price, but it is abundantly clear the Ricketts will not pay it. Depending on circumstances, I can buy the arguments about avoiding losing your draft position for overages, but the penalties in reality are tiny, even for multiple offenses unless youíre just gonna Steinbrenner it up.

Atomizer
Jun 24, 2007





Kirios posted:

It really goes to show just how awful that Heyward contract is. Imagine the Cubs if that money was given for a reliable solid starter instead.

Yeah, I don't like making GBS threads on Heyward (or athletes in general, they're humans too and they're trying their best - except there are some outliers like Bauer that deserve all the hate they get) but that contract definitely hurts the team, and I wouldn't blame any front office for shying away from similar deals in the immediate aftermath of getting burned by one like that. And there are plenty of other examples (e.g. Chris Davis) of guys having a monster season or two and then cashing in only to fall off a cliff for the rest of their careers.

KDdidit posted:

For years there were always the murmurs about once the TV deal was up they were really going to rake it in and get that sweet Dodgers TV $. I don't know if Crane Kenny and the business guys actually believed that, as even a dumb fan like me saw the writing on the wall that well would dry up by the time they got to end of the deal. They also bought all that property around the park in a sellers market so I don't doubt that hurt them financially. That being said, it doesn't give them an excuse to be cheap, but I think they made some equally bad financial decision off the field at least equal to the JHey contract.

The fact that they tried to deploy Marquee in 2020, The Year That Shall Be Forgotten, didn't help things.


It does genuinely seem like the guys were/are interested in continuing to play for the Cubs, but intended to pursue free agency because why not? I do think it's weird that, even if they felt like they received low-ball offers, they wouldn't at least offer intentionally high-ball counter-offers, though. :shrug:

GoatSeeGuy posted:

Quintana was valuable at the time of the deal based mostly on his contract- 200ish innings of 3.50 fip for 8-10 million is an absolute steal, and costs accordingly. Prospect hugging wasnít as fierce as it is now and most people making GBS threads on the deal are enjoying the benefit of hindsight. He just turned into a pumpkin like Hayward and fell off a loving cliff.

We really have to reiterate that Quintana was an MLB-ready starter that the team [at least thought they] needed then, in exchange for prospects who weren't going to be ready to help the team in their contention window.

GoatSeeGuy posted:

When the Red Sox won the World Series by blowing past the ďdonít call it a salary capď luxury tax their total bill was all of $12 million. Thatís the price you pay for not developing enough cheap stars, itís not much of a price, but it is abundantly clear the Ricketts will not pay it. Depending on circumstances, I can buy the arguments about avoiding losing your draft position for overages, but the penalties in reality are tiny, even for multiple offenses unless youíre just gonna Steinbrenner it up.

I didn't want to say it because I prefer not to poo poo on teams that aren't the Cardinals, but we don't really want to be like the Yankees (or Dodgers,) do we? I mean if you're fine with buying championships (or worse, spending the money and failing to do so) then so be it.... :shrug:

Bird in a Blender
Nov 17, 2005

It's amazing what they can do with computers these days.



Itís MLB, itís drat hard to win a World Series without spending a good chunk of money in free agency. Playing moneyball like the Athletics or other small market teams is just the owners being cheap.

Bismack Billabongo
Oct 9, 2012

Wet


Troy Queef posted:

They donít even have to look too far to see a team that is by and large successful with that strategy: the Cardinals have made ďwin 85-90 games, maybe make the playoffs as a WC, and have 3 million fans+boffo business at Ballpark VillageĒ into an art form over the past 4-5 years

(This year has seen the limitations of that strategy, as even after St Louis allowed full capacity they canít draw more than 30-35k on even a Friday night because nobody wants to watch a deeply mediocre team with Jake Woodford in its rotation. Even though this may be Waino and Yadiís last dance, too.)

I agree with your sentiment that the thread should be about the cardinals. This season has been a real bummer. Especially with how good wainwright has been. Itís absurd watching everyone else in the rotation struggle to make it through four innings while wainos thrown multiple complete games haha

more falafel please
Feb 26, 2005

forums poster



Atomizer posted:

Yeah, I don't like making GBS threads on Heyward (or athletes in general, they're humans too and they're trying their best - except there are some outliers like Bauer that deserve all the hate they get) but that contract definitely hurts the team, and I wouldn't blame any front office for shying away from similar deals in the immediate aftermath of getting burned by one like that. And there are plenty of other examples (e.g. Chris Davis) of guys having a monster season or two and then cashing in only to fall off a cliff for the rest of their careers.

The fact that they tried to deploy Marquee in 2020, The Year That Shall Be Forgotten, didn't help things.

It does genuinely seem like the guys were/are interested in continuing to play for the Cubs, but intended to pursue free agency because why not? I do think it's weird that, even if they felt like they received low-ball offers, they wouldn't at least offer intentionally high-ball counter-offers, though. :shrug:

We really have to reiterate that Quintana was an MLB-ready starter that the team [at least thought they] needed then, in exchange for prospects who weren't going to be ready to help the team in their contention window.

I didn't want to say it because I prefer not to poo poo on teams that aren't the Cardinals, but we don't really want to be like the Yankees (or Dodgers,) do we? I mean if you're fine with buying championships (or worse, spending the money and failing to do so) then so be it.... :shrug:

Yeah, I don't understand what the issue with "buying championships" is. I'd rather have the billionaire owners of my favorite team pay very good players what their services are worth and field a contending team all the time. What I don't like about the Yankees doesn't have anything to do with them spending money.

I don't know what the Dodger's secret sauce is, but player development has a lot to do with it, along with a willingness to spend on good players in the free agent market.

GoatSeeGuy
Dec 26, 2003

What if Jerome Walton made me a champion?




Atomizer posted:

I didn't want to say it because I prefer not to poo poo on teams that aren't the Cardinals, but we don't really want to be like the Yankees (or Dodgers,) do we? I mean if you're fine with buying championships (or worse, spending the money and failing to do so) then so be it.... :shrug:

I lived through the 80's and 90's, the Ricketts could spend 500 million a year in salaries and their great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren would still be set for life.


Good news though, all our financial dreams are about to come true! Welcome to the next generation of MLB revenue streams everyone!

Welcome to the Wrigley OTB!

https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-cubs-wrigley-field-draftkings-sportsbook-20210805-hzqnmwzetjcexhjnpzemkvx6g4-story.html

SourKraut
Nov 20, 2005

CAUTION: POST QUALITY UNDER CONSTRUCTION





Can't wait for them to claim they can't sign any players to big contracts because they're taking biblical losses in sports betting.

Bird in a Blender
Nov 17, 2005

It's amazing what they can do with computers these days.



Going to see the best baseball team in Chicagoland tonight. Thatís right, Iím seeing the Dogs.

Kevlar v2.0
Dec 25, 2003

ホームラン!


Bird in a Blender posted:

Going to see the best baseball team in Chicagoland tonight. Thatís right, Iím seeing the Dogs.

Oaf it up for the rest of us

Popete
Oct 6, 2009

This will make sure you don't suggest to the KDz
That he should grow greens instead of crushing on MCs



Grimey Drawer

Dogs should have acquired Baez.

The X-man cometh
Nov 1, 2009


Did the Cubs make any more money in 2017 than they did in 2013? They're still going to rake in cash no matter what.

Wrigleyville is a theme park for suburbanites now, the actual team is superfluous to profits. Rosemont has as much charm.

Go Dogs.

Bird in a Blender
Nov 17, 2005

It's amazing what they can do with computers these days.



Their attendance in 2017 was like 600k more than 2013, so I assume they made more money. The real ďproblemĒ is that even their worst years, theyíll get over 2 million people into Wrigley. So thereís a pretty high floor compared to other teams.

The Cubs had a payroll of just $68 million in 13 vs. $178 million in 17. It definitely pays better for the Cubs to be cheap and lose.

Bird in a Blender fucked around with this message at 22:29 on Aug 7, 2021

Bird in a Blender
Nov 17, 2005

It's amazing what they can do with computers these days.



Trip report, the Dogs won, and they let a kid who got over cancer run the bases after the 3rd. God I love independent ball.

Kevlar v2.0
Dec 25, 2003

ホームラン!


Bird in a Blender posted:

Trip report, the Dogs won, and they let a kid who got over cancer run the bases after the 3rd. God I love independent ball.

Did they beat up the ketchup mascot though

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Bird in a Blender
Nov 17, 2005

It's amazing what they can do with computers these days.



I donít think so. It was Squeeze the Mustardís birthday, so maybe he was being kind.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply