The new market inefficiency might start with creating a team that stinks -- for a couple of years, anyway.
Seriously.
Not that the Cubs would announce this to their fans and season ticket holders that this is their plan, of course.
Under the new CBA agreement, the worse your team is, the more money you get to spend on draft picks because they'll be higher picks. You'll get a larger pool. Same goes with the international signings. The teams with the lowest winning percentages will get the most money to spend.
So not only does trading "win now" guys like Sean Marshall, Matt Garza, Geovanny Soto, and Carlos Marmol net you prospects and cost controlled players in the present, it pretty much ensures that you will stink for a couple of years and have more money to spend on amateur players.
And what better, cheaper way to get impact players than to get top picks and/or top pool money in both the amateur draft and international markets? We know Tampa parlayed their bad years into high picks that got them players like David Price, Evan Longoria, BJ Upton, etc.
The Cubs can do the same for the next 3 years, including this year's draft where they will have the 6th pick plus two supplemental picks they picked up for letting two other win-now type players go in Aramis Ramirez and Carlos Pena. The Cubs will also get the added bonus of being able to spend more money on international players. They won't have to really outbid anyone for top international talent They'll simply have the most money to give, or close to it anyway. Combine that with their investment in scouting in the Latin and Far East markets -- plus the state of the art facilities in the Dominican Republic, how could the Cubs possibly lose out on top players?
This is also why you can't sign Prince Fielder. He may make the Cubs just good enough to compete, maybe even win 80 games or so. If you sign him, you make your team mediocre for a couple of years, spend around $50M during that time, and get rewarded with a mid-round pick and less money for the international free agent pool. It then ensures that you have to keep trying to pick up impact players through free agency and increase the cycle of spending to compete. Where's the motivation to do that?
But if you stink, you save that money, win a lot less games, get top 5 picks (and the bigger draft pool that goes with it) and more money to spend internationally. Then when you've built a strong, deep farm system you can use those players on the field or to trade for impact players at the major league level --as teams like the Reds and Nationals are doing now (although not with the same kind of overpayment). You will also have saved money on your payroll to spend later on impact free agents when you're team really is a player or two away from title contention.
See. Simple. The new market inefficiency is to trade short term assets for long term assets. You will get good young talent, but you may not win right away. And that's okay because MLB will reward you for your on the field ineptitude with more money to spend and acquire even more young talent. Then, when these players develop and a few become impact players on the field, the Cubs can put themselves a player or two away from contending for a title. Then, the beauty of the CBA is that it allows big market teams to continue to spend as much as they want in the free agent market. So the Cubs, being the big market team that they are, can play that game too. They can spend big and add those final pieces to the puzzle.
It's all part of the plan. Just be patient and don't tell anyone.
Filed under: Cubs
LOL, John! I just hope to be around when the whole kit and kaboodle works...
I'm glad you caught the tongue-in-cheek nature of the piece! As I was writing it I kept thinking that this is crazy, then in the next instant I kept thinking it just might be crazy enough to work!
Ha, yep, Bud Selig really did the game a favor. Seriously, I'm down with the plan. The Cubs have sucked for so long, what's another 2-3 years? Build up the farm, watch some young prospects grow, then really put it together in 3 years. I can wait.
I'm willing to wait as well. Hard to get impact players now if you draft low because a player stands to lose money by making it clear he's a tough sign. He can slide down, and a team can draft him but they won't be able to pay him more to get him signed.
But John, I'm 60 years old!! rofl I just hope it works the first time. Okay,, I'll be patient!!
BTW,, great article and Merry Christmas to you and all your readers !!!
Ha! Thanks...I know what you mean. I don't really want to see the Cubs lose, but if they do it may actually speed up the rebuilding process with this ridiculous CBA. It'd be taking 2 steps back to take a giant leap forward.
Actually, it makes perfect sense, and it's completely consistent with what Epstein said when he arrived: compete while building for the future --- but when there's a conflict between the two, always favor the future. With the new CBA, there no longer was any way to compete WITHOUT harming the future potential, so right after the CBA was approved, they changed direction and started to build around guys who know how to play --- while starting to trade our assets for future talent. I think they started out seriously competing for some of the big names, but had to decide to just try to bid up the prices that their competitors would have to pay. And they still might sign a Fielder up, just to provided at least one "attraction" for getting folks to come to see the games.
Hendry tried it the "Win now" way, and we see how well that turned out --- we'll still be paying for that strategy until we've finished Soriano's contract. But I would rather watch a bunch of less talented guys who play hard and play the game right, then a bunch of overpaid, overrated, overWEIGHT guys just going through the motions while picking up their paychecks.
That's the crazy part. It does make sense and I think it'll work. It's a little bit of a jab at the CBA but it's a sound plan if you're willing to struggle for a couple of years. I think the Cubs will play hard, play good D, get on base, play team baseball...it'll be a fun team to watch. Probably not a lot of runs, but all the other aspects of their game will be better.
... and ... at that point, adding a high-priced free agent or two actually might make a difference.
Exactly.
I don't necessarily think it's a market inefficiency. It encourages bad teams to rebuild rather than act like a bunch of Jim Hendrys. It also favors the Cubs at this point in time, so I have absolutely no problem with it.
This sort of plan really does favor the Cubs, both now and then again later when they can spend on a couple of top FAs to complete the rebuilding process.
Actually,, upon reflection, it's an extremely sound philosophy for building a long lasting championship caliber roster.
As you get better, you have the ability to pick up FA's to augment your needs and thru trading for upside pieces in the minors, plus the amateur draft and international signings, you set in motion an escalator effect that brings a constant flow of talent to the top.
I believe the secret here is putting your initial investments into quality scouting of amateur/international players. Easy to say and hard to do. Doable but hard.
I see Theo and Jed doing this, so it just requires patience, I guess.
Just because they trade away veteran players to rebuild does not
mean they can't win. It just will take time (years) to develop our own
players to fit our system. Theo and Jed can play by the new CBA
rules and still win in the long run.
John ... I don't remember who said it now but some wag said about the NBA ... the worst thing you could do was finish as the 8th seed ... guaranteed to lose in the first round, out of the lottery -- perpetual mediocrity.
The NFL's national TV contracts and whacked system guarantee not only high draft picks but an easy schedule ... making "worst to first" much easier ... in its own way.
Never thought about that aspect of the CBA .. that said, Epstein in particular uttered the phrase, "Every season is sacred."
I think that definitely applies here as well with the new CBA.
I think that quote applies more to football. There aren't many games, so you have to make them count. People also tend not to think so much about the future in football. With the exception of the upcoming NFL Draft, it's all about what's happening this season. It's hard to build for the future with short careers and a ton of uncertainty in player performance. But in baseball, the only time a team is truly building for immediate success is a deadline trade to fill a hole. I see next season as means for development, and nothing more. If people don't produce, then a team like the Cubs can just spend away.
An afterthought - both Florida and Tampa have done that ...
Florida twice after winning the WS - did player dumps for prospects.
Tampa has done it with players at or near arb eligible years ... keeps the pipeline stuffed with controlled prospects ... draft 'em, grow 'em, trade 'em, re-load ... and so on.
The beauty of the Cubs and their large market is they don't have to dump and re-load. They can afford to keep everyone.
Hopefully ... that will be done with good contracts, on worthwhile players, that do NOT contain player tilted clauses.
yes, agreed.
That is truly the way to go then. It will afford them more time to keep the minor league system well stocked, after the initial waves come through & they start drafting at the bottom.
I say blow it up. Get rid of Soriano, Marmol, Soto, and Byrd. Get rid of all of Hendrys mistakes and start over. I'd hate to see Garza go, but if Theo & Co don't believe they can realistically compete in the next 2 - 3 years, then get the most out of Garza that you can. Maybe they can catch lightning in a bottle with a couple of these value signings and trades and we can be a witness to a worst to first turnaround type season. Whatever happens, I'll still be there cheering for them and I'm excited to see what the future brings!
I'm willing to wait a couple of years if it means getting this organization on the right path. I've waited since the mid 70s, why not a couple of more years?
Great conversation. And the dynamics of it is you have to develop a couple of cornerstone young pitchers and a young stud position player who can hit 3rd or 4th for you. Why it is such an opportunity now to trade some pieces to get some pitching prospects that can become that as well as what you draft.
Think of Tampa Bay developing their pitchers and Longoria, and then having the ability to go out and sign someone like Fielder and other compliments. Wouldn't that be exciting. That is what the Cubs have the potential to be. The Nationals are trying to be that now.
Tampa was the team I was thinking of. Build with some top picks who become impact players...then you have the advantage of having the money to re-sign your guys or sign pieces off the FA market. Cubs have the ability to exploit the CBA from both sides.
It's not hard to figure out what Theo's plan is, I just hope he's prepared to hear crickets around Wrigley because as much as everybody wants him to strip the team down from its competitiveness, most won't pay to see a 100 loss team, I could see attendance going down 25-35% over the next 2 years.
That is definitely one of the prices they'll have to pay, but maybe having a lower payroll can help mitigate that loss in attendance.
Attendance peaked in 2008 (3.308mm) and has slowly slid south.
What is most noticeable is that, while paid attendance remains sort of stable (3.063mm in 10 and 3.018mm in 11) actual "fannies in the seats" vary dramatically. The Cubs remain a favorite destination for out-of-towners and the secondary markets cratered last year for all but a few dates.
I was among many who thought there would be some sort of token (5%) reduction - but only the bleachers were substantively reduced. Bringing back the deposit was a "test". Moving up the "paid in full" date was a gigantic mistake IMO ... esp given the record, the late introduction of the front office and the manager, and the flux in the roster.
I've been told ... that the "family" is acutely aware of the problems. TR has cast his lot with E/H & Co (not a small investment, mind you) and seems willing to live with the results.
I think you will be surprised. Last year's team was not a whole lot of fun to watch. Cub fans are so loyal, if we see the team going in the right direction, playing the game with effort and hustle, and no more excuses, those fans will be there. I find what is going on now refreshing and almost liberating. We have a solid bullpen, and if we get any decent starting pitching, we will find a way to win some ballgames in the short term even.
I think we'll see better baseball and better pitching, speed, defense can actually make you a better team than one with one dimensional players like the Cub were last year. I wouldn't rule out the possibility that the Cubs surprise a little.
I grew up watching a young Dunston, Grace, Carter (bad trade) and
many others. I am willing to wait again.
my god emartinez ... Carter netted us Sutcliffe, who went 16-1 in 84 and, but for a torn hammy and the competitive urge to come back too soon, may have been much more productive ... you couldn't find anyone from that era who would have traded Carter for the over-the-top excitement that '84 brought to Cub Nation !!!!!!
His last few years he stole money from the Cubs. Bad deal.
I think having a great scouting department, like we have, will give us the edge with the new CBA. We don't need to intentionally suck to gain an advantage. The reality of the new CBA is that it's more of a scouting competition now. You can't just throw a ton of money at it, you have to get your picks right, and you have to develop your talent.
I love the trade we made here. It helps us win more games in 2012 and going forward as well. We just added a legit left handed starting pitcher to our rotation for a reliever that we can replace, rather easily. We have 3 guys that are ready to step into the Marshall role. Russell was every bit as good as Marshall in the relief role. His numbers were out of sorts due to dumb ass Quade starting him.
The reality is there was nothing to blow up here. Everyone knows we need to get rid of the bad contracts, that was a given. If this team has Garza and Castro on it opening day, anything that has been done can only make us better for 2012 as well as future years.
Well said !
I think this is right on the money. I don't think you go forward by intentionallly going backward. do you caution the young guys not to play too well? Could be a crazy strategy to intentionally lose but it seems like we are still getting complimentary pieces to give us a chance to compete next year. we may all be surprised!
True. But scouting is a lot easier when you have one of the first 5 picks or the most money to spend on international FAs. If you have the least money in the pool, you can scout a guy, but the team with the most money is going to sign him.
I think baseball is a sport where the high draft picks are still a crap shoot anyway. Far more of them bust than make it. I see the point with the international market, but our best international player was a guy that flew under the radar. My opinion is the Cubs are a big market team, and they are obligated to do everything they can to win in both the short and the long term. When you charge premium dollars for your tickets(top 3 in baseball in price), you are not afforded the luxory of sucking for a few years. I'll give them 2012 to get the overall direction changed, but in 2013 the expectation is they need to compete for this division.
I think it's a crapshoot, but the further you go down the draft, the bigger the crapshoot becomes. It's always an advantage to have the highest pick possible.
I still think one of the main reasons not to get Fielder is because then you totally devalue of their assets, LaHair. I really think you need to give this guy a legitimate shot. If he turns out to be a legit, and I think his stats say he has a good chance to be, then you can either keep him or deal him and he becomes valuable either way. If you don't give him a shot he has basically no value as a 28 year old minor leaguer.
LaHair is raking in the winter league. I still think at the end of the day he's going to be the Cubs Opening Day first baseman.
This is good to hear. I have softened my stance on Fielder because I do like LaHair. I will be the first to admit that he looked much better than I though he would last season. If the boys believe he can be 30hr+ 1B, I am on board.
I still think you don't get Fielder not because you are trying to lose but because you devalue an asset-- LaHair. He has a decent shot at becoming a legit 1st basemen, if he can become that, that is a huge win for the Cubs, because it costs us nothing and gives us another big asset!
sorry for the repeat post, seemed like it logged me off again. I see what you are saying John and it does make some logical sense, but I think Theo really did mean it when he said every chance to compete is sacred. And also I think there are no guarantees when it comes to top 5 guys or throwing alot of money even at draft picks. Certainly it probably helps but I think theo and the boys are confident enough in their abilities to find guys without having to just outspend other teams on draft picks.
I'm confident in their ability as well, but when you have a mid-round pick you're not going to get one of the main guys you want. Guys won't slip because of signability issues because there won't be signability issues.
A couple of years ago the Red Sox got to draft Anthony Raunado, who was considered a top 5 caliber pick, but he slid down because of concerns about his signability. Under the current system, he would have been taken in the top 5. I think the great scouting will be there, but the opportunity probably won't be. Not in the first round, anyway.
sorry, why are are there less signability issues under the new CBA?
Actually I kind of see your point here Gary. It is still very possible that it will be hard to draft high school guys at certain points in the draft.
For example, if you have a mid to later 1st round pick, and a HS guy slips down, he might just not sign for that slot money knowing that if he goes to college that he can easily be a higher pick the next time he is eligible, and get the bigger contract.
Honestly, if I were in that postion, I think that I might wait if I knew I'd get picked higher later. We'll have to see what the slotting dollars are, but it seems to me that this could lead to a lot of kids not signing if they aren't picked in the top of the draft.....
Uncle Theo and cousin Jed are crazy. Crazy like foxes planning to raid the hen house that is.
That they are!
never mind I see what you are saying
Does anybody know how it will work now. If a high school kid gets drafted, but does not sign because he thinks he can go to college and get drafted higher, when is he eligible to be drafted again?
Also with international players, do teams have a slotted amount they can spend on a certain number of players, or can you spend your total amount on one or two players? And how is your amount determined, by the standings?
Based on the discussion we are having, it makes sense for the Cubs to really go hard for this Jorge Soler kid, most say he would be a top 5 pick if he were in the draft. Also the young pitcher out of Cuba if they like him. I don't trust the Coespedes fellow, he looks like a steroid freak to me, and has kind of a loopy swing.
To answer the first question, it's the same as the last CBA, he isn't eligible again until he's a junior in college.
The amount you get is determined in reverse order of your winning percentage. The worse you are the more money you get in your pool. The money is a total amount, so if there is a superstar that everyone wants, you can pool all your money toward that player if you wish. Or you can spread it out amongst a few players. There will be probably be an international draft in the near future where an amount will be slotted for each player, just like the MLB amateur draft is now.
And I 100% agree on Soler. He's the guy you have to go after under the current plan (if your scouts like him, of course).
So tell me all knowing one ... ::gg::
Do some HS guys go to juco instead of a 4 yr program? Are juco guys eligible "right away" instead of having to wait till junior year? Am speaking of ... say ... a 10th round pick who doesn't like what's offered but doesn't want to wait 2 yrs before being eligible again.
Oh by the way, the signing $$ for UDFAs counts against the pot ... and penalties as well (picks and $$).
I'm definitely not all-knowing, that's for sure. On Cubbie Ron's question, I was assuming he meant a 4 yr college, but yes, JUCO rules are different. They can be eligible the very next year, wait until their 2nd yr, or go transfer to a 4 yr college. Not too many prospects take that route but there's been some that have.
Yes, UDFAs do count against the pool. There's just no way to circumvent the process if you're a big market team except to bite the bullet and lose for a couple of years.
Thanks John. Read somewhere that the Cubs have the 6th, 41st, 42nd, and 60th pick in the draft next year. Chance to do some damage there.
Merry Christmas to everyone. This site is fantastic and I really enjoy the friendly and knoweldgable banter from all the posters. Am in the process of planning a trip to Phoenix for some spring training games and a drive over to Vegas for when we play two games in Sin City in March. Already need some warm weather.
I don't believe in purposely losing.
I don't think it's so much purposely losing as not taking money to sign guys like Fielder (or keeping guys like Ramirez, Pena) who will make you win a few extra games but delay the overall process and tie up money for the future. You sign guys who will take 1 or 2 year deals and in most cases, those aren't the best players out there. You get the best you can on short term deals but that probably won't get you the caliber of player that will help you win a ton of games right away. It's more like a future investment. Instead of buying the fancy car today, you save the money drive your 1988 Plymouth for another year or two, and get yourself a big house later instead. The second plan is the better long term investment.