Dan's Offseason Moves Part One: Cruz

[weams]

And just to answer the poll question, my answer was yes (obviously). I thought Cruz did a lot to help the team last year. He was well liked. A leader. Hit very well. Other hitters batting around him saw better pitches to hit. And I thought the other players on the team felt comfortable, and therefore played more relaxed, knowing he was in the lineup. He made everyone around him better.

I think having Cruz this year without Davis who was a budgetary casualty if Cruz were signed would have hurt the team. Even though I would have done it. I did not expect the Davis rebound.

[Aristotelian]

I would have probably non-tendered Matusz and De Aza, saved the $8M(?) and used that to sign someone like Aoki or maybe Rasmus. I don't recall exactly what I said during the offseason, but something like that and not very much else different. The issue is the budget. It's hard to come up with a clearly better solution than Duquette did without some combination of 20/20 hindsight and a bigger payroll. The payroll went up even after letting Cruz and Markakis walk.

I wanted to keep Matusz and De Aza, but find some money by trading Norris in a salary dump. But I had no idea that Norris's regression would be so bad, so I understand why DD didn't do it. Either way, this shows just how much constraint DD was under with all the guys getting arb raises. There is simply no way to make Cruz's money work. Even with Matusz/DeAza or Norris, you are only part way there to make up Cruz's dollars. Maybe Wieters too? In hindsight perhaps but nobody on this board was suggesting that!

One additional point is that letting Cruz walk got us a comp pick. Who knows, if Mountcastle turns into our SS/3B of the future, he may look like a no-brainer compared to 38-year old Nelson Cruz in the last year of his contract. It's going to be a long time before we can really evaluate this deal.

[islandecho]

I think having Cruz this year without Davis who was a budgetary casualty if Cruz were signed would have hurt the team. Even though I would have done it. I did not expect the Davis rebound.

Well do we know for sure that having Cruz meant no Davis? I can't really see the team doing that. Why sign Cruz if you are just going to let your other main home run threat leave? I am sure it is possible, but I sure hope that wasn't the plan.

I know many were saying over the winter that this was the year to go for it, since so many FA's were leaving after this season. I didn't post here back then but I did agree with that strategy. It has been a long time since we had a WS winner. To get so close last year and to then kind of fall flat and not improve during the off season I think took a lot of moxy and swagger away from the team. Just a thought.

[DrungoHazewood]

Two completely different bets, though. At least with the latter you have comfort that there will be production in the short term (with the tradeoff being the potential you'll need to operate around $14MM in bad contracts in year 4 and maybe year 3). Pearce was literally a replacement level contributor for his entire career until 2014.

Now, I certainly accept that you can't just shrug of Pearce -- he earned a long 2015 look. But you need to build in contingencies that help bridge that production gap.

The contingencies were Snider and De Aza and Lough and Paredes and the like. All they really needed out of Pearce was reasonably good half-time play, and the others would spot in where their strengths and weaknesses dictated. That failed when almost all of them either got hurt or underperformed or both.

[weams]

Well do we know for sure that having Cruz meant no Davis? I can't really see the team doing that. Why sign Cruz if you are just going to let your other main home run threat leave? I am sure it is possible, but I sure hope that wasn't the plan.

I know many were saying over the winter that this was the year to go for it, since so many FA's were leaving after this season. I didn't post here back then but I did agree with that strategy. It has been a long time since we had a WS winner. To get so close last year and to then kind of fall flat and not improve during the off season I think took a lot of moxy and swagger away from the team. Just a thought.

Yeah, we do. We do know that.

[DrungoHazewood]

This is not a valid statement based in fact. If anything Cruz is the ONE thing that JackZ did right. Cruz, by any stretch of reality, has out performed his contract so far.

But was it a good plan? Was it a good risk without the benefit of hindsight? I think it was a pretty terrible contract based on his performance record and age. His performance in year one doesn't change the fact that they signed a 34-year-old DH expecting him to perform better in his mid-to-late 30s than from age 30-33. That fails 98 times in 100, or thereabouts. It's not the results, it's the process.

[islandecho]

I wanted to keep Matusz and De Aza, but find some money by trading Norris in a salary dump. But I had no idea that Norris's regression would be so bad, so I understand why DD didn't do it. Either way, this shows just how much constraint DD was under with all the guys getting arb raises. There is simply no way to make Cruz's money work. Even with Matusz/DeAza or Norris, you are only part way there to make up Cruz's dollars. Maybe Wieters too? In hindsight perhaps but nobody on this board was suggesting that!

One additional point is that letting Cruz walk got us a comp pick. Who knows, if Mountcastle turns into our SS/3B of the future, he may look like a no-brainer compared to 38-year old Nelson Cruz in the last year of his contract. It's going to be a long time before we can really evaluate this deal.

Well my thought process was the money would only hurt you for one year....this year. Next year with so many FA's leaving, you could retool and reevaluate. And probably put the salary cap back to where you want it. But I think one year of going over budget when you had such a legit chance to win the WS was worth it.

Plus, look at it this way. Yes it was a risk, but at the same time you would have to think that because your team was better with Cruz and perhaps a top starter, that the team would be in the pennant race deep into the season, and hopefully the playoffs and WS. That means huge crowds at the ball park spending lots of money. Money that could more than made up for whatever extra the team spent this year. Yes it was a gamble, but one worth taking imo. The team won their division by 12 games. They were in the ALCS. They were close. The way the FO played out the off season was imo a total disservice to their fans. And their players.

[weams]

Well do we know for sure that having Cruz meant no Davis? I can't really see the team doing that. Why sign Cruz if you are just going to let your other main home run threat leave? I am sure it is possible, but I sure hope that wasn't the plan.

I know many were saying over the winter that this was the year to go for it, since so many FA's were leaving after this season. I didn't post here back then but I did agree with that strategy. It has been a long time since we had a WS winner. To get so close last year and to then kind of fall flat and not improve during the off season I think took a lot of moxy and swagger away from the team. Just a thought.

I would have gone for Cruz myself. I did not believe that Davis was real. I believed that he was more like Pearce. I was wrong. It would have been great to "Go For It." But evidently, there was not an extra 150 million over the next five years to spend.

[weams]

Well my thought process was the money would only hurt you for one year....this year. Next year with so many FA's leaving, you could retool and reevaluate. And probably put the salary cap back to where you want it. But I think one year of going over budget when you had such a legit chance to win the WS was worth it.

Plus, look at it this way. Yes it was a risk, but at the same time you would have to think that because your team was better with Cruz and perhaps a top starter, that the team would be in the pennant race deep into the season, and hopefully the playoffs and WS. That means huge crowds at the ball park spending lots of money. Money that could more than made up for whatever extra the team spent this year. Yes it was a gamble, but one worth taking imo. The team won their division by 12 games. They were in the ALCS. They were close. The way the FO played out the off season was imo a total disservice to their fans. And their players.

So you felt that they should have used the money differential between 80 and 120 million over the next four years to fund this one? I guess that is a strategy, but then you have to trade Jones, Manny and Schoop this off-season. I'll give you that. It would have been a plan.

I guess you would have to trade Britton and Gausman too.

[DrinkinWithFermi]

No one is.

*looks casually around forum*

Welp, you certainly could have fooled me lol.

[DrungoHazewood]

I don't see much hate unless you include irrational hate that will be there every year regardless of the types of moves made.

Yes, those.

Also, actually interested to see how his ardent supporters and his critiques around these parts will react.

I'm sure you count me as an ardent supporter, and I have been quite vocal in my support for the team since he's taken over. I like winning baseball. But Duquette will be judged on how he addresses the obvious issues. If he lets the payroll fall to a level significantly below this year's I'll be very interested (and skeptical) in how that plan would work. If he trades what little is left on the farm for short-term stopgaps that'll be disconcerting. If signs a bunch of guys who come with draft pick compensation attached that'll be hard to get behind. But we'll see. He's done interesting and creative things in the past. There are opportunities to right some wrongs and fix some holes.

[Aristotelian]

Well my thought process was the money would only hurt you for one year....this year. Next year with so many FA's leaving, you could retool and reevaluate. And probably put the salary cap back to where you want it. But I think one year of going over budget when you had such a legit chance to win the WS was worth it.

Plus, look at it this way. Yes it was a risk, but at the same time you would have to think that because your team was better with Cruz and perhaps a top starter, that the team would be in the pennant race deep into the season, and hopefully the playoffs and WS. That means huge crowds at the ball park spending lots of money. Money that could more than made up for whatever extra the team spent this year. Yes it was a gamble, but one worth taking imo. The team won their division by 12 games. They were in the ALCS. They were close. The way the FO played out the off season was imo a total disservice to their fans. And their players.

None of this has anything to do with Duquette. If they are going to increase budget to "go for it," that decision comes from up above.

[DrungoHazewood]

Well my thought process was the money would only hurt you for one year....this year. Next year with so many FA's leaving, you could retool and reevaluate. And probably put the salary cap back to where you want it. But I think one year of going over budget when you had such a legit chance to win the WS was worth it.

It's fairly obvious that wasn't an option. I believe that if PA had wanted Duquette to spend an extra $20M or $30M he would have. I don't believe in Trea-ian fantasies where Angelos desperately wanted to be Mike Ilitch but his GMs just wouldn't spend his money.

[weams]

*looks casually around forum*

Welp, you certainly could have fooled me lol.

If we had non tendered De Aza and Norris. If we had not tried to retain Nick. If we had non tendered Wieters. And been willing to have 20% of our 2016 through 2018 be tied up in a DH. Yes it would have worked. No one could have really guessed that that would have been the smart thing to do. No one is really saying that that should have been done. What they said an what I agreed with is that we should have had a 140 million dollar payroll. Unfortunately, Nationals.

[DrungoHazewood]

If we had non tendered De Aza and Norris. If we had not tried to retain Nick. If we had non tendered Wieters. And been willing to have 20% of our 2016 through 2018 be tied up in a DH. Yes it would have worked. No one could have really guessed that that would have been the smart thing to do.

More like 12%. Unless you think the 2018 payroll is going to be $70M.