Cubs Sign Jacque Jones - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Cubs Sign Jacque Jones

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby stumpak » Wed Dec 21, 2005 10:04 am

I have to agree that these are the stupidest sort of deals for teams to make: locking in a guy who is a very marginal improvement over what you have in a multi-year. The Dodgers have done this repeatedly over the past decade, and look where it has gotten them.
stumpak
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2729
Joined: 9 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Washington, DC

Postby WittyC » Wed Dec 21, 2005 10:17 am

statsman88 wrote:
warrick95 wrote:What's the improvement from Corey Patterson (who's younger) again?


He'll play slightly better D, hit for a little better average, and will be a much better team player, as Patterson continues be a "my way or the highway" kind of guy who is terrible but doesn't care.


I don't understand this statement about C-Pat at all. The reason he struggled last year is because Dusty tried to make him something he's not -- a leadoff hitter.

This signing was terrible for the Cubs, because I honestly believe that C-Pat would have a solid season playing right field and hitting down in the order.

Also, I don't agree at all that Jones would play better D than C-Pat.
Is there anything fluffier than a cloud?
If there is, I don't want to know about it.
WittyC
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1096
Joined: 3 Feb 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Dillon, CO

Postby legoshoe » Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:55 pm

Geez, you guys are ripping into Jacque pretty good. He can hit for average but just lost plate disipline over the last few years.

Believe me, he has the potential to do good things at Wrigley.

C-Pat is terrible, not Jacque, open your eyes Cub fans. (BTW, they are my 2nd favorite behind Minnesota so I'm happy for Jacque)
legoshoe
College Coach
College Coach

User avatar

Posts: 174
(Past Year: 19)
Joined: 2 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Maple Grove, MN

Postby RynMan » Wed Dec 21, 2005 6:29 pm

stumpak wrote:I have to agree that these are the stupidest sort of deals for teams to make: locking in a guy who is a very marginal improvement over what you have in a multi-year. The Dodgers have done this repeatedly over the past decade, and look where it has gotten them.


Agreed. They let Burnitz walk who will cost alot less, comparible offensively although probably a downgrade defensively - although not massive. They probably could have gotten him with a 1 year deal with an option for 2007 too....
Image
RynMan
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerAward-Winning Graphics ExpertMock(ing) DrafterEagle Eye
Posts: 8891
Joined: 4 Feb 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Oztailia

Postby BeefSandwiches » Wed Dec 21, 2005 7:15 pm

RynMan wrote:Agreed. They let Burnitz walk who will cost alot less, comparible offensively although probably a downgrade defensively - although not massive. They probably could have gotten him with a 1 year deal with an option for 2007 too....


Burnitz's 2006 option was for $7M, so he was more expensive than Jones this year, but I don't like the 3 year deal.

I don't think there is a drop off defensively, in fact, I think Jones is a slight upgrade with better speed and a .986 career fielding percentage - Burnitz does have the throwing edge though.

As said before, the Cubs could have done worse.
BeefSandwiches
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 611
Joined: 18 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Football

Postby stumpak » Wed Dec 21, 2005 7:56 pm

If you take any sort of long-term view, Brunitz for one year at $7M is better than Jones at $5M per for three years. It baffles me how these teams' gut reaction is to dramtically increase their risk and decrease their flexibilty in 2007 and 2008 with very little apparant 2006 gain in terms of capability or cost savings. I am not even a finance guy and even I can see that even a very consevative risk model would demonstrate the Cubs choice to be very stupid by almost any financial or value metric.

I tell you I can see why these MBAs can run circles around a lot of these baseball guys even if they know jack about evaluating talent and things like that. Not in all areas, but in a lot of them.
stumpak
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2729
Joined: 9 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Washington, DC

Postby Dmville » Wed Dec 21, 2005 10:31 pm

GM's have to look at not only this years FA pool, but what will likely be available the next couple years as well. Maybe the corner OF pool gets even smaller in the next couple years and $5 mil for a somewhat consistent guy isn't too terrible. I'm not about to go analyzing it myself though.

Sure pay Burnitz $7M this year, and then the FA next year could be even worse plus they have Pierre's contract to deal with after this season too if I'm not mistaken.
Dmville
Dmville
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 499
Joined: 8 Feb 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby RynMan » Thu Dec 22, 2005 5:15 pm

BeefSandwiches wrote:
RynMan wrote:Agreed. They let Burnitz walk who will cost alot less, comparible offensively although probably a downgrade defensively - although not massive. They probably could have gotten him with a 1 year deal with an option for 2007 too....


Burnitz's 2006 option was for $7M, so he was more expensive than Jones this year, but I don't like the 3 year deal.

I don't think there is a drop off defensively, in fact, I think Jones is a slight upgrade with better speed and a .986 career fielding percentage - Burnitz does have the throwing edge though.

As said before, the Cubs could have done worse.


Could the Cubs not resign him now after not picking up his option, for a cheaper deal? I agree with stumpak in that I would rather have Burnitz for 1 year at 7, than Jones for 3 at 5.

I actually meant I thought Jones was the better defender, although I haven't looked up any defensive metrics to compare the two - I would just assume that Jones is the superior defensive player.
Image
RynMan
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerAward-Winning Graphics ExpertMock(ing) DrafterEagle Eye
Posts: 8891
Joined: 4 Feb 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Oztailia

Postby BeefSandwiches » Thu Dec 22, 2005 9:08 pm

RynMan wrote:
BeefSandwiches wrote:
RynMan wrote:Agreed. They let Burnitz walk who will cost alot less, comparible offensively although probably a downgrade defensively - although not massive. They probably could have gotten him with a 1 year deal with an option for 2007 too....


Burnitz's 2006 option was for $7M, so he was more expensive than Jones this year, but I don't like the 3 year deal.

I don't think there is a drop off defensively, in fact, I think Jones is a slight upgrade with better speed and a .986 career fielding percentage - Burnitz does have the throwing edge though.

As said before, the Cubs could have done worse.



Could the Cubs not resign him now after not picking up his option, for a cheaper deal? I agree with stumpak in that I would rather have Burnitz for 1 year at 7, than Jones for 3 at 5.

I actually meant I thought Jones was the better defender, although I haven't looked up any defensive metrics to compare the two - I would just assume that Jones is the superior defensive player.


Sorry for the misread - I obviously thought you were saying Burnitz was better defensively.

I agree with you on the one year Burnitz versus the 3 years for Jones. $5M/year isn't too bad for a veteran OF, but if Jones continues his decline, he will be tough to move with over $10M left on his deal after this year.
BeefSandwiches
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 611
Joined: 18 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Football

Postby RugbyD » Thu Dec 22, 2005 11:06 pm

stumpak wrote:I have to agree that these are the stupidest sort of deals for teams to make: locking in a guy who is a very marginal improvement over what you have in a multi-year. The Dodgers have done this repeatedly over the past decade, and look where it has gotten them.

he can always be traded, especially if he does well, tro a team with salary restrictions. then the cubs can go spend money when a better FA is available. this isn't a handcuff in any way.
TennCare rocks!!!!
RugbyD
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe Ranker
Posts: 5591
Joined: 7 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: punting small dogs and being surly

Previous

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Wednesday, Sep. 17
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

LA Dodgers at Colorado
(3:10 pm)
San Francisco at Arizona
(3:40 pm)
Toronto at Baltimore
(7:05 pm)
Boston at Pittsburgh
(7:05 pm)
Washington at Atlanta
(7:10 pm)
Miami at NY Mets
(7:10 pm)
NY Yankees at Tampa Bay
(7:10 pm)
indoors
Cincinnati at Chi Cubs
(8:05 pm)
Cleveland at Houston
(8:10 pm)
Chi White Sox at Kansas City
(8:10 pm)
Detroit at Minnesota
(8:10 pm)
Milwaukee at St. Louis
(8:15 pm)
Seattle at LA Angels
(10:05 pm)
Texas at Oakland
(10:05 pm)
Philadelphia at San Diego
(10:10 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact