SBNation.com User Blog: Bill Bonham

Renovation in three years?

Bill Bonham — Sun, 21 Apr 2013 05:11:49 -0000

For the most part, I'm excited about the likely Wrigley renovation, but while I do not have a problem with the five-year timetable, I'm trying to think of a way it might be done in three or four that could be beneficial to all parties involved (although it should be noted that the Cubs may not want to shorten it).

The decision appears to have been made not to vacate Wrigley, but what if the team played at Miller Park in April, May and September for the next three years and at Wrigley in June, July and August? This could have many benefits to most parties involved:

It would enable the project to be done in three or four seasons since it would extend prime construction time by three months each year (for these workers, the toughest time is the heat of the summer) - leaving only June, July and August where they could not work (and even then, some things could be accomplished while the team was on road trips or no game was taking place). It would also allow for better weather throughout the season, since Miller Park has a retractable roof.
For the Cubs, it would allow for some of the revenue-producing enhancements to kick in sooner; would increase demand for tickets in June, July and August at Wrigley; perhaps bring in some new fans; and draw wider attention to the renovation.
For the Brewers, it would be an added revenue source and could alert more people to the appeal of Miller Park.
For the city of Milwaukee, it would also be a revenue boost.

I'm sure there are more benefits, as well as several negatives. After all, you'd think if this idea had merit, the Cubs would have already pitched it. But what do my fellow Cubs fans think?

It would enable the project to be done in three or four seasons since it would extend prime construction time by three months each year (for these workers, the toughest time is the heat of the summer) - leaving only June, July and August where they could not work (and even then, some things could be accomplished while the team was on road trips or no game was taking place). It would also allow for better weather throughout the season, since Miller Park has a retractable roof.
For the Cubs, it would allow for some of the revenue-producing enhancements to kick in sooner; would increase demand for tickets in June, July and August at Wrigley; perhaps bring in some new fans; and draw wider attention to the renovation.
For the Brewers, it would be an added revenue source and could alert more people to the appeal of Miller Park.
For the city of Milwaukee, it would also be a revenue boost.

I'm sure there are more benefits, as well as several negatives. After all, you'd think if this idea had merit, the Cubs would have already pitched it. But what do my fellow Cubs fans think?

Poll

What are your thoughts about the Cubs playing in the cold-weather months over the next three years at Miller Park and playing at home during the summer as a way to speed up the Wrigley renovation?

This could work.

10 votes

Maybe some variation of this could work.

9 votes

Meh.

14 votes

Too complicated, with not enough gain.

50 votes

83 votes | Poll has closed

The star test reality check

Bill Bonham — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 06:22:31 -0000

I admire Cubs fans (I am one myself) for their positive nature, but history can tell us some things we may not want to hear. Just ask Nate Silver.

I'd like to note two seemingly reliable ways to gauge future success for position players in the major leagues, though I admit I do not have the scientific data to back it up. They are: A player who has not established himself with a breakout year in the majors by age 25 will probably not become a star of any magnitude. And if a player toils much at all in the minors, he likely will at best have modest success in the majors.

I did some quick research of the minor and major league statistics of 13 of the Top 15 vote getters on the 2012 Hall of Fame ballot (I did not include pitchers Lee Smith and Jack Morris, since we are talking about position players). They are: Barry Larkin, Jeff Bagwell, Tim Raines, Alan Trammell, Edgar Martinez, Fred McGriff, Larry Walker, Mark McGwire, Don Mattingly, Dale Murphy, Rafael Palmeiro, Bernie Williams and Juan Gonzalez.

Now, other than Larkin, who is in the Hall, I think we can agree that not too many of these guys are likely to get in. Perhaps Raines, and maybe one or two more down the road in some fashion. McGwire and Palmeiro are scarred by steroids, but that doesn't really factor in here, since they almost certainly weren't doing them in the minors or early in their careers, which is what we're measuring here.

So what we have are a number of very good players, which is all we should have the right to expect as we see the likes of Castro, Rizzo, Baez, Soler and Almora in the majors or working toward that goal.

But keep in mind that all of the previously mentioned 13 players posted at least an .800 OPS season by age 25, with the exception of Trammell (who posted a .775 and 4.8 WAR by age 22; Larkin, who attained a .776 and 7.0 WAR by age 24; and Martinez, who came to the majors late - one of those rare future stars who was not established by age 25). These statistics are, of course, assuming a full season (at least 502 plate appearances, although there is one instance where I allowed a season of a few appearances short of that to qualify). In addition, most of these players dominated in the minors with few instances of any sustained struggles, with many being on a fast track to the bigs.

It also should be noted that most of these players exhibited strong plate discipline, at least according to their stats.

The point here is, it's probably no small deal if say, Baez struggles this year at Daytona. A full season of struggles just doesn't happen very often in the minors, even to a 20-year-old, if they are destined for big things. Also, all those players who have had mediocre minor-league careers who we are hoping suddenly emerge - that is also rare. And to say Castro "is still so young" or "give Rizzo time because this is his first full season in the majors," well, not so much. At 23, Castro needs to take a step or two up within the next couple years to project as a perennial star (which very well could happen) and the time is now for the 24-year-old Rizzo (it's actually very unusual for a first baseman who has not played a full season in the majors by his age to go on and be a significant star).

And Brett Jackson? I think Nate Silver would tell you that that ship has sailed.

I admire Cubs fans (I am one myself) for their positive nature, but history can tell us some things we may not want to hear. Just ask Nate Silver.

It also should be noted that most of these players exhibited strong plate discipline, at least according to their stats.

And Brett Jackson? I think Nate Silver would tell you that that ship has sailed.

Modest ceilings for Castro, Rizzo, Vitters

Bill Bonham — Wed, 08 Aug 2012 06:13:47 -0000

If you're looking for the next big Chicago Cubs star for the organization to build around, you'll likely have to look way south to Daytona Beach, Fla., where Javier Baez got his first two hits at High A tonight.

Of course, it will be a few years before Baez establishes himself in the bigs, and major stardom will only come if he addresses an issue that almost certainly will keep two current Cubs from becoming mainstays in the middle of any championship-caliber lineup.

Plate discipline.

I pretty much gave up on Starlin Castro as a future superstar in the middle of his sophomore season, when it became obvious he was going to be the kind of player who pitchers could get out without throwing strikes. And that he wasn't going to - or couldn't - change.

I often hear what a stud Castro is, and wonder if those who think his talents are so large are watching the same player I am. He's made significant strides with his defense this year, but the simple fact is that major-leaguers who walk once every 20 at bats do not become big stars. Almost none do, and you could look it up (Andre Dawson is a notable exception).

Castro is only 22, but he's regressing. There was hope when the new regime came in talking about grinding at bats, but apparently that was just rhetoric. Castro is still young, but if he can't learn to recognize pitches just out of the zone or resist sliders off the plate, he's doomed to be a slightly better version of Shawon Dunston, who by the way, walked once every 30 at bats in his career.

And that's OK, if three years from now Castro is hitting seventh and playing a capable shortstop. But if he's in the middle of the lineup, the Cubs still won't be any good. And the same thing can be said of Anthony Rizzo. His walk ratio with the Cubs is right in that same once every 20 at bats that Castro is averaging for his career, and he shows no tendency toward being a patient hitter.

This limits the ceiling for both players, who may end up as solid major-leaguers, but not the kind of difference makers the Cubs are looking for.

And guess what? Josh Vitters belongs right with them, not that anyone has particularly big hopes for him. With his picturesque swing, however, he's a guy who could be a great hitter if he would make pitchers throw him strikes. And for the record, his career numbers in the minors are also right in that one walk every 20 at bats range.

The bottom line is the Cubs will never be winners until they address this fundamental weakness that has plagued the organization for years.

Hopefully, Baez can help turn the tide. But that's a long way off.

Plate discipline.

This limits the ceiling for both players, who may end up as solid major-leaguers, but not the kind of difference makers the Cubs are looking for.

The bottom line is the Cubs will never be winners until they address this fundamental weakness that has plagued the organization for years.

Hopefully, Baez can help turn the tide. But that's a long way off.

10 Cubs questions from winter meetings and beyond

Bill Bonham — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 06:07:48 -0000

It has been an eyebrow-raising winter meetings for the Cubs on many levels. Here are 10 questions that come to mind:

1. Is Dale Sveum Mike Quade?

His comments about the Cubs pitching staff being solid and only needing a couple starters to fill out the bottom of the rotation to cure what ailed the team in 2011 were baffling, especially coming on the heels of Theo Epstein's comments that every team needs nine starters available for every season. Sveum looked clueless in his interview by the MLB channel in Dallas on Tuesday.

2. Is Theo Epstein Jim Hendry?

I had my doubts when Epstein talked about swinging some deals at the winter meetings. Jim Hendry said this a couple times heading into the meetings as well. Deals are rare in this day and age when everybody wants to win the trade.

3. Do Theo & Co. have a plan B?

I'm starting to think that privately the Cubs are stunned by the CBA. It's like their whole plan was to fix this thing through the draft and now they don't know what to do.

4. Is Theo afraid to pull the trigger or spend even mid-level money on a free agent?

I'm also starting to wonder whether all those bad free agent deals in Boston have Epstein on his heels. You can't be afraid to spend on a free agent when you're a big market team, that's supposed to be the advantage of being a big market team - that you CAN overpay. But it seems Epstein is looking for the perfect move. If he is, he'll be waiting for a long time.

5. Are the Cubs going to be more conservative with their spending than any of us thought?

It sure looks like it based on this quote that Theo gave Paul Sullivan for a Chicago Tribune article Wednesday: "That's what fits where we are right now (small moves) ... with our resources and our roster."

6. After earlier saying that a big market team like the Cubs shouldn't ever be in rebuilding mode, Epstein also contradicted that with the second part of the above quote to Sullivan:

"... (We're) trying to get incrementally better and also build for the future."

7. Where are the players that are going to make the Cubs even a .500 team going to come from in the next 2-3 years if not largely through free agency?

I'm sorry to all you optimists, but the Cubs do not have any minor-leaguers who are likely to be difference makers coming along anytime soon. Certainly not in the next two years. So if they are not going to delve into the free agent market other than for bargain-basement players, how are they going to contend before 2015 at the earliest? I guess if Epstein is looking to get incrementally better, perhaps that's what he shooting for.

8. Why does anybody think the Cubs would sign Prince Fielder?

He makes it almost impossible for them to improve defensively next year, especially with a wild-armed Starlin Castro.

9. Are the winter meetings overrated?

I love baseball so much that I always get very excited for them. And they always let me down.

10. What is the over/under on Cubs wins for 2012?

I'll go with 75.