The Cubs weren't very active last winter and the moves they made were relatively safe. They placed their bets on the likes of Paul Maholm, Reed Johnson and David DeJesus so as far as safe bets go, these are about as safe as it gets. Perhaps the Cubs ought to look into more sports betting online ideas to help improve even more.
On November 30, 2011 the Cubs signed DeJesus to a 2-year deal for $10 million. The contract paid him $4.25 million in 2012 and will again pay him the same amount in 2013. The Cubs hold a $6.5 million option for 2015 or they can pay a $1.5 million buyout.
They essentially paid DeJesus to be worth 2 wins over the 2 gauranteed years of the contract. He hit .263/.350/.403 with a .332 wOBA (104 wRC+). DeJesus was coming off a down season in 2011 and the Cubs figured there was a good chance he would improve. He did.
His fWAR was 1.7, rWAR 1.6 and WARP 1.0. If he's close to as good as that in 2013, he'll be worth more than the Cubs paid. It's also likely he'll be dealt at the trade deadline if he's having a good season.
I had expected DeJesus to provide better than average baserunning and defense, but all 3 of the defensive metrics (UZR, DRS, FRAA) were about -4 runs. His UBR was -1. One of the reasons I liked the contract at the time was because the Cubs had a shitty defense for several years and were equally shitty on the bases. I thought for sure he'd help improve the team. The Cubs did improve, but it wasn't because of him.
All it took to sign Paul Maholm was 2 years and $11.25 million. Maholm's greatest asset to the Cubs was what he brought back in return when he was traded to the Braves in July. Overall though, Maholm had a solid season.
Despite a 12.8% HR/FB rate, he posted a 3.67 ERA and a 4.00 FIP over 198 innings. It was the second highest innings total in his career (206.1 in 2008). His fWAR was 2.5, rWAR 1.9 and for some reason WARP wasn't too impressed (0.1 WARP).
The Cubs paid Maholm for a little more than 2 wins over 2 years and he came pretty close to providing that in year one. He was also traded, along with Johnson, for Arodys Vizcaino and Jaye Chapman.
In 2011 Johnson had a pretty good season in part-time play. It made the decision of whether or not to re-sign him that much easier and the Cubs gave him only $1.15 million. It was a no-brainer at the time. He's not going to turn a team into a contender, but he's a solid role player.
He had 266 PA in 2011 and 268 in 2012. This past season he hit .290/.337/.398 with a .322 wOBA (99 wRC+). Johnson was once a good fielder, but those days are past him. He's a below average fielder though not a bad one.
The Cubs paid Johnson next to nothing. He had a .347 wOBA at the time of the trade. He produced 1.0 fWAR, 0.8 rWAR and .6 WAR while with the Cubs. He didn't perform too well once he went to Atlanta, but he gave the Cubs a lot more than they paid for.
The front office did well in their free agent signings from a year ago, but they gambled little and as well as the deals turned out, they profited little from them. If Vizcaino can stick as a starter that may change, but most reports I've read say he'll be a reliever at the MLB level.
When you sign players of this caliber, you can't expect to profit too much, but it's better than looking stupid. We can unfortunately expect more of these deals over the next couple of seasons and maybe even longer depending on the farm system.
Comments
The Scott Baker signing was kind of cool if it works out and he can get traded. I’m very interested to see how much they actually throw at Brandon McCarthy or Marcum. If they make a late push for Zack Greinke I might freak out in a good way before I realize what that would mean financially (dying laughing)
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Brandon McCarthy cleared to throw baseballs again. Maybe signing soon?
Also:
Snoop as a pup
Snoop all grown up
jtsunamiQuote Reply
What an awesome site, Obstructed View blogger. Thanks for linking to it in your content!
EDIT:
/dick
Suburban kidQuote Reply
@ Suburban kid:
$$$
mb21Quote Reply
Yeah, but….
Aw!
joshQuote Reply
@ josh:
Comic!
Rice CubeQuote Reply
@ mb21:
We’re all gonna get rich!. Lickety clickety
Suburban kidQuote Reply
The integrated commercial: another media convention invented by Jack Benny.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
@ jtsunami:
This should have been a Dog Shot. Your account has been suspended. Please review the Posting Constitution before posting again: http://www.obstructedview.net/Constitution/ArticleIV_Posting/SectionA_Non_Cubs_Materials/Subsection1_Pictures/e_Animals/ii_Domesticated/aa_Mammals/1_Dogs.html
GBTSQuote Reply
@ GBTS:
I like that we have a Constitution. (dying laughing)
mb21Quote Reply
@ mb21:
Can you please make that link work? (dying laughing)
WaLiQuote Reply
@ WaLi:
GBTS should totally lawyerize it.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
OV Constitution should just be one page that says “Stuff will be posted on occasion, just don’t be a faget and things will be fine.”
GBTSQuote Reply
@ GBTS:
That is totally lawyerific.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
@ WaLi:
click it again
mb21Quote Reply
@ GBTS:
I’m here to serve.
mb21Quote Reply
http://obstructedview.net/Constitution/ArticleIV_Posting/SectionA_Non_Cubs_Materials/Subsection1_Pictures/e_Animals/ii_Domesticated/aa_Mammals/1_Dogs.html
mb21Quote Reply
@ mb21:
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
I like that it’s under the “Dogs” section.
GBTSQuote Reply
@ GBTS:
We’re thorough.
mb21Quote Reply
Who was the original poster who used the term “faget?” I can’t remember its origin. It wasn’t The Hawk, was it?
GBTSQuote Reply
Also, today we’re making fake internet constitutions. Another raucous day in Cubdom.
GBTSQuote Reply
@ GBTS:
Ryno used it in a mocking way. I don’t remember when it was first used, but it just took off.
mb21Quote Reply
@ GBTS:
Imagine what we’ll be doing this time next year.
mb21Quote Reply
At RC’s request, new comic:
http://obstructedview.net/comics/future-signings.html
joshQuote Reply
I like that it’s 1_Dogs.html, which would imply there might be a 2_Dogs.html and perhaps even more.
mb21Quote Reply