2014 Chicago Cubs In-Season Discussion Thread

[SilenceS]

He works from 90 down to the 70's. Add to it he controls both sides of the plate. Wells just had a slider.

Wells had control and people lost their shit. The minute he lost some of the control he got lit up. I like Hendricks, but I expect no more than him being a 5 and I would suggest most people do the same. He proves he is better then that then its all gravy.

 

[SilenceS]

How did Arrieta leap from what he was 2-3 years ago to what he is now?

Arrieta has always had good stuff. He just had no control and gave up long balls. He has controlled that this year and added that fucking nasty slider/cutter. Arrieta potential was always there. He was a highly ranked prospect.

 

[beckdawg]

How did Arrieta leap from what he was 2-3 years ago to what he is now?

Arrieta was always viewed to have better stuff just lacked control and had a HR/FB problem. Hendricks relies mostly on control and doesn't have dominating stuff though I've ready his change up is really good. Players like him can succeed and succeed at a high level. Fister for example has made a pretty good career with what you would hope Hendricks can do. The problem is that other pitchers have had control and not enough to get people out. In the case of Arrieta, they fixed his issues and he's working down in the zone more which has improved his control some and kept balls in the park.

I still think Arrieta will eventually come down from where he is given the peripherals he has but he keeps going out and proving me wrong thus far. Ultimately, I'm pretty sure he's a top 10 pitcher which is probably where he should be talked about if you're just looking at this year. But hey, until he stops being that good on him.

 

[Parade_Rain]

How did Arrieta leap from what he was 2-3 years ago to what he is now?

Arrieta didn't leap from where he was 2-3 years ago. He has more command of the strike zone. Hendricks already appears to have control of the strike zone. Edwards isn't anywhere near a call up. They aren't going to be leapfrogging Arrieta.

 

[dabears253313]

Arrieta didn't leap from where he was 2-3 years ago. He has more command of the strike zone. Hendricks already appears to have control of the strike zone. Edwards isn't anywhere near a call up. They aren't going to be leapfrogging Arrieta.

I just think they will be pretty good in 2-3 years. We'll see.

 

[Parade_Rain]

I just think they will be pretty good in 2-3 years. We'll see.

They'll need to be more than "pretty good" to be something above a MOR.

 

[dabynsky]

They'll need to be more than "pretty good" to be something above a MOR.

You can win with a bunch of MOR. Plenty of teams have.

 

[Parade_Rain]

You can win with a bunch of MOR. Plenty of teams have.

I don't doubt it.

 

[dabynsky]

I don't doubt it.

I just get tired of the where is the ace going to come from talk. The fact that people are worried about who starts game 1 of a playoff series seems like putting the cart ahead of the horse, but also ignores plenty of teams that have won it all without that dominate ace. Either way this front office has done a nice job of identifying starters which managed for the Cubs to put up a sub 4 starter ERA this year and last (in the first half) despite trading 40% of their rotation each year the front office has been in charge.

 

[Parade_Rain]

I just get tired of the where is the ace going to come from talk. The fact that people are worried about who starts game 1 of a playoff series seems like putting the cart ahead of the horse, but also ignores plenty of teams that have won it all without that dominate ace. Either way this front office has done a nice job of identifying starters which managed for the Cubs to put up a sub 4 starter ERA this year and last (in the first half) despite trading 40% of their rotation each year the front office has been in charge.

You must be involved in a conversation that isn't taking place here.

 

[dabynsky]

You must be involved in a conversation that isn't taking place here.

Very well possible this late at night.

 

[CSF77]

I just get tired of the where is the ace going to come from talk. The fact that people are worried about who starts game 1 of a playoff series seems like putting the cart ahead of the horse, but also ignores plenty of teams that have won it all without that dominate ace. Either way this front office has done a nice job of identifying starters which managed for the Cubs to put up a sub 4 starter ERA this year and last (in the first half) despite trading 40% of their rotation each year the front office has been in charge.

2008 holds true here. That team lead the NL in runs scored and OBA. The rotation had no true ace. The team was owned at that time by Zell and they did not pay up for CC and went the cheap route in Harden. In the short series vs the Dodgers they got swept.

Now who had the better O? The Cubs did. But the Dodgers beat them with their pitching.

In the end it is going to come down to pitching match ups because great pitchers can shut down any line up production.

Taking that further:

Think next year. Would you feel good about Kershaw vs Arrieta. Then Greinke vs Wood then Ryu vs Jackson?

I wouldn't. It would be a sweep regardless of the O. Those pitchers have shut down line ups that are more battle tested than a bunch of rookies.

In the end we need Wood and Jackson as a 4/5 at best. Other words not a part of a 5 game series.

 

[Parade_Rain]

...Think next year. Would you feel good about Kershaw vs Arrieta. Then Greinke vs Wood then Ryu vs Jackson?

I wouldn't. It would be a sweep regardless of the O. Those pitchers have shut down line ups that are more battle tested than a bunch of rookies.

In the end we need Wood and Jackson as a 4/5 at best. Other words not a part of a 5 game series.

Who was suggesting that the Cubs would be unloading Jackson this off season?

 

[dabynsky]

2008 holds true here. That team lead the NL in runs scored and OBA. The rotation had no true ace. The team was owned at that time by Zell and they did not pay up for CC and went the cheap route in Harden. In the short series vs the Dodgers they got swept.

Now who had the better O? The Cubs did. But the Dodgers beat them with their pitching.

In the end it is going to come down to pitching match ups because great pitchers can shut down any line up production.

Taking that further:

Think next year. Would you feel good about Kershaw vs Arrieta. Then Greinke vs Wood then Ryu vs Jackson?

I wouldn't. It would be a sweep regardless of the O. Those pitchers have shut down line ups that are more battle tested than a bunch of rookies.

In the end we need Wood and Jackson as a 4/5 at best. Other words not a part of a 5 game series.

And last year the Boston Red Sox won it all when Jon Lester, Clay Buchholz, Jake Peavy, and Jon Lackey were getting postseasons starts. They beat teams with much better starting rotations particularly the Tigers that had Verlander, Sanchez, Scherzer, and Fister. They beat the Rays who wad David Price and Matt Moore. They beat the Cardinals with Wacha, Wainwright, Kelly and Lynn. Every single matchup the Boston Red Sox had a lesser pitching staff and yet they won with the best offense in baseball by run scored, obp, slg, ops+. Good pitching beats good hitting is a fun little saying, but the best pitching staff doesn't always result in postseason success otherwise Verlander would have a ring by now.

 

[CSF77]

How I would approach it:
First I would offer Jon Lester a 6 year deal. Born: January 7, 1984. 31 at the start of the deal. I would front load it to free up the back end if they need to trade him during the end of it.

Clayton Kershaw: 15:$30M, 16:$32M, 17:$33M, 18:$33M, 19:$32M, 20:$33M That is top end cash.
Zack Greinke: 14:$24M, 15:$23M, 16:$24M, 17:$23M, 18:$24M is the bottom end.

That is how much TOR are going for.

If they started him out at 30 mil for 3 then 25 for 2 then 20 for the last year he comes in at 6 years 160 mil. If he wants more then give it as a signing bonus.

After that I would run Arrieta as my 2. On a 3 I would start with Hendricks. Now this is when I would roll the dice on a risk F/A at a buy low.

Chad Billingsley

Billingsley, who suffered the injury while recovering from Tommy John elbow reconstruction, said he opted for another surgery over stem-cell injection therapy after meeting with surgeon Neal El Attrache, based on a risk-reward comparison. A former All-Star, he hasn't pitched for the Dodgers since April 15, 2013. The flexor tendon surgery is less invasive than Tommy John reconstruction. Billingsley said he will rehab for three months, start throwing in December and be ready for next Spring Training.

I would offer him a 5 mil with performance options. I would let him take his time and when the ASG rolls around get him ready for the postseason. At that point they can take the weakest link in the rotation and sell or push to the pen. (If they are in it but I'm feeling that they have a opportunity next year if the Rooks can play)

 

[CSF77]

And last year the Boston Red Sox won it all when Jon Lester, Clay Buchholz, Jake Peavy, and Jon Lackey were getting postseasons starts. They beat teams with much better starting rotations particularly the Tigers that had Verlander, Sanchez, Scherzer, and Fister. They beat the Rays who wad David Price and Matt Moore. They beat the Cardinals with Wacha, Wainwright, Kelly and Lynn. Every single matchup the Boston Red Sox had a lesser pitching staff and yet they won with the best offense in baseball by run scored, obp, slg, ops+. Good pitching beats good hitting is a fun little saying, but the best pitching staff doesn't always result in postseason success otherwise Verlander would have a ring by now.

To play with the big boys you need to be on even playing ground. The Giants won with no O but the best staff. Cards strong pitching. etc.

The Cubs are not going to have success with a bubble gummed rotation.

 

[dabynsky]

To play with the big boys you need to be on even playing ground. The Giants won with no O but the best staff. Cards strong pitching. etc.

The Cubs are not going to have success with a bubble gummed rotation.

That is simply not true. Last year the top offensive teams in each league met in the World Series. The last two times the Cardinals made it to the World Series they scored the most runs in the league. The Red Sox staff didn't have an ace, and had more name power than star power that point. The Giants certainly won on the no O/good pitching formula their first WS, but the second one wasn't close to that. The team had the second best OPS+ to the St. Louis Cardinals who were the two teams that met in the NLCS that year. For every example you can cite with the better pitching winning a short series there are examples of teams that had just enough pitching with a good offense winning.

 

[dabynsky]

To play with the big boys you need to be on even playing ground. The Giants won with no O but the best staff. Cards strong pitching. etc.

The Cubs are not going to have success with a bubble gummed rotation.

Hell take it a step further. A guy that had been a bigger bust of a contract than Edwin Jackson pitched meaningful innings in the postseason for the World Champion. It isn't about the most talent in the postseason. It isn't about the most pitching talent. It is what team gets hot a the right time (05 White Sox pitching staff was not the greatest ever assembled to make the postseason and yet it did something no other team has ever done and they won)

 

[CSF77]

Hell take it a step further. A guy that had been a bigger bust of a contract than Edwin Jackson pitched meaningful innings in the postseason for the World Champion. It isn't about the most talent in the postseason. It isn't about the most pitching talent. It is what team gets hot a the right time (05 White Sox pitching staff was not the greatest ever assembled to make the postseason and yet it did something no other team has ever done and they won)

Agree with theis. 2008 Cubs took time off after they clenched. They went into a 5 game cold. Big reason why W/C teams had the advantage round 1. With the new rules W/C is a disadvantage because they have to give up a starter in a 1 game elim.

 

[CSF77]

That is simply not true. Last year the top offensive teams in each league met in the World Series. The last two times the Cardinals made it to the World Series they scored the most runs in the league. The Red Sox staff didn't have an ace, and had more name power than star power that point. The Giants certainly won on the no O/good pitching formula their first WS, but the second one wasn't close to that. The team had the second best OPS+ to the St. Louis Cardinals who were the two teams that met in the NLCS that year. For every example you can cite with the better pitching winning a short series there are examples of teams that had just enough pitching with a good offense winning.

That is 1 year. We can flip that around when talking about the giants in back to back.