Acquring Young Stud Pitchers

[Parade_Rain]

I don't want to sign him either but I'm not holding his playoff record against the likely Cy Young winner. Pitching is tricky. Kershaw gets a bad playoff rap and dude is the best active pitcher in the game. I think they're going to need a guy who's stuff ages well. Greinke could be that guy but I don't buy the low $ folks are thinking in this thread, if they're true then hell yeah. I think he'll be similar to Lester only right handed in that he'll probably be able to pitch fairly well past his prime. He's got good stuff but isn't completely stuff dependent. Add him, trade for Ross or even Carrasco and now you have something that will strike fear in the playoffs.

Note: Kershaw and Greinke are sitting at home. Price looks to be headed there quickly, too. CY is a regular season award with zero guarantee of playoff success. The atmosphere and pressure are completely different.

 

[CSF77]

Trade Baez equals get fired

Why is that? If anything the Cubs can afford to lose a SS. Castro has trade value but most teams will look at his track record and his current contract and would shy away. He could give plus value or minus value any year and his pay scale keeps going up. Baez is cheap control with power potential. Add to it he profiles at SS/2B/3B. 2 of the 3 are premium positions.

The thing is if anyone says he can't be traded that means he would pull back some prime talent.

Now if it was Harvey for Baez and some other adds I believe most here would not complain much. Mets are looking to get Wheeler back. They already have Matz and Niece with DeGromm and Thor. They are a team that could afford to lose a talent like Harvey with out batting an eye. As long as the return justifies it.

 

[DanTown]

Spend $20 million on Heyward so you can sit who? Schwarber? Soler?

I would imagine the move is to basically have him be your Dexter Fowler and play CF and lead-off even though Heyward has talked about not liking the lead-off spot (for whatever physiological reason).

 

[Doubledown]

Spend $20 million on Heyward so you can sit who? Schwarber? Soler?

Fowler will probably be gone.

 

[beckdawg]

Let's get a few things right
Rizzo - Team control through 2021; doesn't cost more than 14.5 million
Castro - Team control through 2020; doesn't cost more than 12 million until 2020 when Cubs have one million/16 million option
Lester -Drops to 20M in 2020 and 2021 is 10M/25M team option

When does Arbitration 1 kick-in
LaStella - Arbitration 1 in 2017
Baez - Arbitration 1 in 2018
Hendricks - Arbitration 1 in 2018
Bryant - Arbitration 1 in 2018
Russell - Arbitration 1 in 2018
Schwarber Arbitration 1 in 2019

The Cubs won't have to pay for hitters until 2019 (that's year four of any deal signed this off-season) and even then, they don't have FA to deal with on these guys until 2021. And the Cubs this year are paying Edwin Jackson 13 million, Montero (might be gone) 12 million, Wada 4.5 million, so there is PLENTY of money to still have a not Dodgers-esque payroll and sign guys both now and later.

Just to show you the flexibility, they can do the following

Pay Fowler the same as what they're paying him+Wada+Motte (16 million)
Pay Arreita what they're paying him+Jackson+Monetro (30 million)

The angels signed Trout to an extension before he even hit arbitration. It's plausible to think the cubs could with at least Schwarber and Bryant on a similar timeline. They probably only are talking about $3-5 mil through your early arbitration years but that adds up. It's pretty realistic to think that Arrieta could get $30 mil a season given that Szchezer got that. Castro makes $11 mil in 2018 and basically $12 mil in 19. Lester makes $27 mil in 18 and $20 in 19. Rizzo makes $7.286 mil in 18 and $11.286 mil in 19. It's not crazy to think Fowler could get $20 mil/season. So between Fowler, Arrieta, Castro, Rizzo and Lester you're talking about $95.3 mil in 18 and $93.3 mil in 19 assuming no other commitments.

The CSN portion of the cubs TV rights runs through the end of the 2019 season IIRC. So, depending on how well they do with those you may end up with some big time cash later on but that wont be immediate. That will take a few years to come together. My guess is the cubs likely will be in the $150 mil payroll range next year and given where they are headed success wise I wouldn't be totally surprised to see them in the $160-170 mil range by 2019. But even ignoring those rookie extensions that only leaves you roughly $70 mil for the rest of the team. If you're dropping $20 mil on another starter that basically dries up any other money to do anything else because you'd need another 19 players(plus another 15 on the 40 man) for $50 mil which is doable but you're talking roughly $2.6 per player. The cubs this year after their top 6 players in salary were $2.9 per

So, is it possible they can add a $20 mil pitcher? Sure. But I don't really see it happening because teams rarely go that close to their margins. Keep in mind if the cubs wanted Shields they could have had him this past offseason for under $20 mil and in that 4 year window but they instead gave Hammel the money. Maybe you argue that this year changes expectations but I'm not entirely sure it does with regard to their money. Obviously opinions can vary but I don't really think they will sign someone longer than 4 years. Their whole mentality has been to build via the draft since Theo came on board.... well that and trades. Other than Lester and Jackson their pitching signings have been guys they hoped to fix and Bosio has done that. Hammel has been a very effective pitcher for the cubs just like Malholm and Feldman before him. It wouldn't surprise me to see them set their sights a little higher in the $10-15 mil/season and 3-4 year deal instead of the $5-10 mil/season 1-2 year deal though.

Also, keep in mind if the MLB doesn't institute a international draft by then you will have seasons where the cubs drop large portions of money into the IFA pool like this year. They have spent $3 mil on E.J. Martinez, $1.3 mil on Yonathan Perlaza $2.5 mil on Yonathan Sierra Estiwal, $2 mil on Aramis Ademan, $1.25 mil on Miguel Amaya, $600k on Yunior Perez. The cubs have a pool of $3.2 mil roughly though they traded some of that away. Anything over that is taxed double. So, the cubs are already around $7.5 mil over which will be doubled. And there's still several cuban prospects out there the cubs might still go after. Doing this takes the cubs out of the big money guys the next two years but last year under the same restrictions the cubs signed Yeiler Peguero to $250k, Wander Cabrera to $250k, Tony Rijo to $100k and Emilio Ferrebus to $250k. So even when they could only drop $250k per player they still managed to spend around $1 mil. Obviously those numbers don't seem big but when you think about the fact the cubs have basically spent $17-ish mil on players who contribute 0 to the 40 man roster right away this season(though i'm imagining some of that is out of next seasons budget) it all adds up.

 

[bamainatlanta]

One, it's been two games.

Two, as the Dodgers can tell you, great pitching just needs one bad night and then all of the sudden that advantage you had is gone.

Three, as a Cubs fan who watched the 2003 and then subsequent years Cubs teams, great young pitching isn't some unbeatable force.

Four, there is no "method" to winning the WS. The answer is "get hot" not "stockpile [blank] because it beats [blank]".

The Braves of the 90's had a big 3(all HOF worthy) and that led to 1 title and a bunch of playoff collapses

 

[beckdawg]

Great pitching beats great hitting! It has been proven time and time again and seems to be playing out exactly that way in this series.

This is largely debatable. I mean look no one would argue that Lester and Arrieta aren't great pitchers. Both lost to arguably inferior guys or at the very least equals in Harvey/Syndergaard. And as a mets fan you well know the reality of "great pitching." All it takes is one injury and that suddenly amazing rotation starts falling apart. Pitching is just far more unreliable than position players.

So, I don't by the cliche that great pitching beats great hitting. The cubs this playoffs haven't even been great hitting. Rizzo who's an NL MVP candidate has hit like shit. Bryant has been better the last couple of games but was shit for most of the Cardinal series. The cubs have been riding Fowler and Schwarber most of the post season with a little help from Soler.

That's not to say you can't win with great pitching. Ultimately the team that wins in the playoffs is the team that executes on both sides of the ball. Castro getting thrown out at home in game 1 is an example of this. The mets have done the things to score and the cubs haven't. They had 4 runs on 4 hits in game 2.

 

[beckdawg]

By the way, if it's Heyward, that would anger me because Heyward has routinely said he doesn't want to bat lead-off. While I love his game, he's just so up and down for a guy who's only 25

Heyward WAR

6.4
2.5
5.8
3.7
6.2
6.5

I also have no desire to pay him eight/ten years after watching what happened with Soriano.

I'm not 100% on how I feel about Heyward. I like his game and all but as you mention there could be a fit issue. That being said, you could bat Russell #1 next year and him #2 if you were so inclined. I'm not sure that's *the best* idea but you could do it.

 

[Midwaymonster75]

" I mean look no one would argue that Lester and Arrieta aren't great pitchers. Both lost to arguably inferior guys or at the very least equals in Harvey/Syndergaard."

 

[Midwaymonster75]

"Great pitching beats great hitting! It has been proven time and time"

how many WS did the braves win ?

Jake was one of the best pitcher in baseball this season and just lost..

ETc. etc

They also had great lineups. I actually pointed out the braves in one of my later posts. Honestly i dont think anyone can explain how the braves only won one world series in all them years. I think its just a case of Buffalo bill syndrome.

 

[beckdawg]

" I mean look no one would argue that Lester and Arrieta aren't great pitchers. Both lost to arguably inferior guys or at the very least equals in Harvey/Syndergaard."

What's your point here? If you're trying to have a legitimate conversation then please continue. If you're just trying to be a jerk then by all means jerk it up. My point I thought was pretty clear. The cubs arguably had as good if not better pitching than the mets and should arguably have had better hitting in both of those games and still lost. It wasn't great pitching or great hitting that won the mets those games it was execution. They got shit done and the cubs didn't.

That in short is my issue with saying great pitching beats great hitting. Arrieta was arguably the best pitcher ever in the second half of the season and he didn't execute and the cubs lost. A great hitting team can lose a game by not getting a bunt down to advance a runner or being able to hit a sac fly to score a run. That shit loses you playoff games. It's not as cut and dry as the best pitching wins a series. If it were the dodgers would have been in the WS the past 2 years. I could literally name you just as many amazing offensive WS championship teams as you can name great pitching staffs.

If you want to suggest great pitching is easier to execute then I think that's an interesting debate. There's likely a fair bit of truth to that which is why most stats guys view k/9 and bb/9 as far better indicators of success than ERA. The thought process there being that the pitcher controls those two areas but who knows what happens on defense after a ball is in play. So, obviously if you had say Randy Johnson on the mound with his god tier 10.61 k/9 he relied far less on other players. With that being said, I think there are styles of offense that are also easy to execute. High contact% teams are typically going to fair well because putting the ball in play has around a .300 average across the majors. Additionally, high OBP teams are on base which is more opportunities to score. I'd also add in speed in playoff series being important. I think it was Granderson who stole third in game 2 and that lead to a run for the mets. In tight games such as the playoffs, advancing bases be it via steals or taking an extra base on hits matters. Speed also tends to have other implications defensively as speedy guys also tend to be good defenders. In essence, you're talking about the anthesis of what I described pitching wise. Guys who don't k much and who walk a lot are quite literally the reverse of dominant pitching though since the steroid era those players are few and far between.

Looking at the present cubs team, they aren't really running that sort of style other than high OBP and I've long said I'm not 100% sold on the three true outcomes approach they have(bb/k/hr) with a big lack of speed. If you want to see a team that does run that approach go watch KC. I would argue it's been a large part of their success together with a pretty dominant bullpen. Last season they just hoped to get 5 innings out of their starters and turned it over to their bullpen. Great defense, some speed and good contact lead them to the WS for a team that arguably shouldn't have been that good. That sort of offense is easy to execute. The cubs offense is hope to walk(dependent on the pitcher) then hope to crush a ball for a HR. Even as many ridiculously good power hitters as the cubs have, that's not easy to execute. Also with regard to KC, they may or may not win this series vs Toronto but the fact they are even up 2-1 at this point is pretty crazy considering the run differential Toronto has had since trading for Tulow and Price. You could argue Tornoto has both better hitting and better pitching but again, KC has an offense that is easier to execute and thus far it's working out for them.

 

[DanTown]

They also had great lineups. I actually pointed out the braves in one of my later posts. Honestly i dont think anyone can explain how the braves only won one world series in all them years. I think its just a case of Buffalo bill syndrome.

SP isn't the most reliable thing in the playoffs. Clayton Kershaw is the best pitcher since Maddux and his career record is 2-6 with a 4.59 ERA. David Price is 0-7 (team record is also 0-7) with a 5.44 ERA as a starter in the playoffs. You just can't say "oh SP will hold up all the time" because it sometimes doesn't. And if your SP fails, you want to be able to rely on some other part of your team to help you so unless your offense gets hot (like it is right now with Daniel Murphy, Curtis Granderson literally carrying the team), a team with only one strength (no matter the strength) is going to struggle.

 

[DJMoore_is_fat]

The Heyward signing is very, very intriguing. I love his age and his skill set, so I wouldn't be concerned with his extension becoming a Soriano-type deal. But my biggest concern would be fit. We've seen many All-Star lineups that haven't materialized into championships because they lack the one thing stats don't factor in --- chemistry.

We need a player who fits - both on the field and in the club house.

What type of club house guy is Heyward? On paper, we'd have a offensive juggernaut.

CF Heywood
LF Scharber
3B Rizzo
1B Bryant
RF Soler
2B Castro/Baez
C Montero
SS Russell

On paper, that would be the nastiest lineup in the league. The World Series formula is so unpredictable. It's about A) Getting into the playoffs and B) Getting hot at the right time. So pretty much all an organization can control is putting together a team that is good enough to make the playoffs.

 

[Boobaby1]

The way Hammel has been frustrated with getting yanked early in games, I would not be surprised for the Cubs to trade for a pitcher to take his place, and maybe even him being involved in a trade, or the Cubs eating a portion of his salary and sending him elsewhere.

The trade for a pitcher like Tyson Ross, coupled with (don't laugh) maybe a reuniting with Theo/Lester and John Lackey to round out the rotation could work.

On paper it would look like this.

Arrieta
Lester
Ross
Lackey
Hendricks

Not the greatest in the world, but very solid.

This also would allow for the Cubs to extend Arrieta, and still have money to improve other areas such as the bullpen, and/or re-signing or replacing Fowler, as Lackey, they could probably get for money somewhere near the Jason Hammel range contract, given Lackey's age.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

The way Hammel has been frustrated with getting yanked early in games, I would not be surprised for the Cubs to trade for a pitcher to take his place, and maybe even him being involved in a trade, or the Cubs eating a portion of his salary and sending him elsewhere.

The trade for a pitcher like Tyson Ross, coupled with (don't laugh) maybe a reuniting with Theo/Lester and John Lackey to round out the rotation could work.

On paper it would look like this.

Arrieta
Lester
Ross
Lackey
Hendricks

Not the greatest in the world, but very solid.

This also would allow for the Cubs to extend Arrieta, and still have money to improve other areas such as the bullpen, and/or re-signing or replacing Fowler, as Lackey, they could probably get for money somewhere near the Jason Hammel range contract, given Lackey's age.

I think Ross is a viable trade target along with Carlos Carrasco and a few others. I'm not certain about Lackey. I know people aren't thrilled about a Samardzija return but it does make sense on a lot of levels.

 

[Midwaymonster75]

What's your point here? If you're trying to have a legitimate conversation then please continue. If you're just trying to be a jerk then by all means jerk it up. My point I thought was pretty clear. The cubs arguably had as good if not better pitching than the mets and should arguably have had better hitting in both of those games and still lost. It wasn't great pitching or great hitting that won the mets those games it was execution. They got shit done and the cubs didn't.

That in short is my issue with saying great pitching beats great hitting. Arrieta was arguably the best pitcher ever in the second half of the season and he didn't execute and the cubs lost. A great hitting team can lose a game by not getting a bunt down to advance a runner or being able to hit a sac fly to score a run. That shit loses you playoff games. It's not as cut and dry as the best pitching wins a series. If it were the dodgers would have been in the WS the past 2 years. I could literally name you just as many amazing offensive WS championship teams as you can name great pitching staffs.

If you want to suggest great pitching is easier to execute then I think that's an interesting debate. There's likely a fair bit of truth to that which is why most stats guys view k/9 and bb/9 as far better indicators of success than ERA. The thought process there being that the pitcher controls those two areas but who knows what happens on defense after a ball is in play. So, obviously if you had say Randy Johnson on the mound with his god tier 10.61 k/9 he relied far less on other players. With that being said, I think there are styles of offense that are also easy to execute. High contact% teams are typically going to fair well because putting the ball in play has around a .300 average across the majors. Additionally, high OBP teams are on base which is more opportunities to score. I'd also add in speed in playoff series being important. I think it was Granderson who stole third in game 2 and that lead to a run for the mets. In tight games such as the playoffs, advancing bases be it via steals or taking an extra base on hits matters. Speed also tends to have other implications defensively as speedy guys also tend to be good defenders. In essence, you're talking about the anthesis of what I described pitching wise. Guys who don't k much and who walk a lot are quite literally the reverse of dominant pitching though since the steroid era those players are few and far between.

Looking at the present cubs team, they aren't really running that sort of style other than high OBP and I've long said I'm not 100% sold on the three true outcomes approach they have(bb/k/hr) with a big lack of speed. If you want to see a team that does run that approach go watch KC. I would argue it's been a large part of their success together with a pretty dominant bullpen. Last season they just hoped to get 5 innings out of their starters and turned it over to their bullpen. Great defense, some speed and good contact lead them to the WS for a team that arguably shouldn't have been that good. That sort of offense is easy to execute. The cubs offense is hope to walk(dependent on the pitcher) then hope to crush a ball for a HR. Even as many ridiculously good power hitters as the cubs have, that's not easy to execute. Also with regard to KC, they may or may not win this series vs Toronto but the fact they are even up 2-1 at this point is pretty crazy considering the run differential Toronto has had since trading for Tulow and Price. You could argue Tornoto has both better hitting and better pitching but again, KC has an offense that is easier to execute and thus far it's working out for them.

My point is "Both lost to arguably inferior guys or at the very least equals in Harvey/Syndergaard" is laughable. If you think that Harvey is "inferior" in any way shape or form to Jon Lester it makes me question whether i should bother debating you because that line wreaks of blind homer.

"It wasn't great pitching or great hitting that won the mets those games it was execution. They got shit done and the cubs didn't."
Why do you think the Cubs couldnt execute?

"In tight games such as the playoffs, advancing bases be it via steals or taking an extra base on hits matters."
Because with good pitching your opportunities are limited so you must take advantage of every opportunity. In 18 innings the Cubs have 1 homerun,3 runs scored total while striking out 20 times. The Mets meanwhile have scored 8 runs which is pretty good especially seeing as we faced Arrieta and touched him up for 4 runs. This is usual mets. Score a few runs because the pitching isnt going to give up much. Go check our record when we score 4 or more runs. We`re like 50-5. Im not trying to be a pain in the ass but pitching has been the difference in this series and if you look at the world series winners since 2000 its mostly about who had the better pitching. I wont go further back because its the same pattern as far back as you can go with of course some exceptions.

 

[DanTown]

My point is "Both lost to arguably inferior guys or at the very least equals in Harvey/Syndergaard" is laughable. If you think that Harvey is "inferior" in any way shape or form to Jon Lester it makes me question whether i should bother debating you because that line wreaks of blind homer.

"It wasn't great pitching or great hitting that won the mets those games it was execution. They got shit done and the cubs didn't."
Why do you think the Cubs couldnt execute?

"In tight games such as the playoffs, advancing bases be it via steals or taking an extra base on hits matters."
Because with good pitching your opportunities are limited so you must take advantage of every opportunity. In 18 innings the Cubs have 1 homerun,3 runs scored total while striking out 20 times. The Mets meanwhile have scored 8 runs which is pretty good especially seeing as we faced Arrieta and touched him up for 4 runs. This is usual mets. Score a few runs because the pitching isnt going to give up much. Go check our record when we score 4 or more runs. We`re like 50-5. Im not trying to be a pain in the ass but pitching has been the difference in this series and if you look at the world series winners since 2000 its mostly about who had the better pitching. I wont go further back because its the same pattern as far back as you can go with of course some exceptions.

You don't seem to get the point so let's be clear: the Cubs SP isn't drastically worse than the Mets SP in the first two games. It's not all surprising to see Harvey/Synedrgaard pitch well but are you saying it's impossible to see Lester/Arrieta pitch well too? There is no advantage to either team with those two. So then it falls to offense and guess what, these were the two best offenses post ASG. The difference between the Mets scoring four runs that game and one run is incredibly small. If Granderson hits 100 balls into the shift, how may times you think he gets a hit on it? That's the thing about the playoffs: there is no "regression" so any sort of out of the ordinary play carries massive significance and you can't predict what type of play that will be.

The Cubs (game 2 against the Cardinals) and the Mets (stealing an uncovered base in game 5) were both beneficiaries of out of the ordinary plays and so far the Mets have had gotten a few breaks on plays and the Cubs haven't. And then when the Cubs did get a break (Lagres play on the Castro ball in game 1), Castro wasn't running hard enough to get to third. The Mets deserve their 2-0 lead because they've made plays and the Cubs haven't. But absolutely none of what has happened has been close to predictable.

If you asked me would I rather the best team on paper or the luckier team, I'd take lucky 100 out 100 in the playoffs.

 

[Midwaymonster75]

"You don't seem to get the point so let's be clear: the Cubs SP isn't drastically worse than the Mets SP in the first two games. It's not all surprising to see Harvey/Synedrgaard pitch well but are you saying it's impossible to see Lester/Arrieta pitch well too? There is no advantage to either team with those two."

First two games the mets have scored 8 runs and the cubs 3. Ive never said anything about cub pitching being worse or bad. I disagree where you say Harvey is in any way shape or form inferior to Jon Lester which is EXACTLY what you said. No lester/arrieta didnt pitch bad at all but just got outdueled by our starters. Sure the mets did the little things to score but the cubs had opportunities and couldnt execute because our pitching did not allow it. I dont understand how you cant understand this simple concept. Strike outs have killed you guys. Its like every time you guys had an opportunity your guys would go down swinging to take you guys right out of the opportunity to score. Familia came in and shut the door two games in a row.

 

[DJMoore_is_fat]

"You don't seem to get the point so let's be clear: the Cubs SP isn't drastically worse than the Mets SP in the first two games. It's not all surprising to see Harvey/Synedrgaard pitch well but are you saying it's impossible to see Lester/Arrieta pitch well too? There is no advantage to either team with those two."

First two games the mets have scored 8 runs and the cubs 3. Ive never said anything about cub pitching being worse or bad. I disagree where you say Harvey is in any way shape or form inferior to Jon Lester which is EXACTLY what you said. No lester/arrieta didnt pitch bad at all but just got outdueled by our starters. Sure the mets did the little things to score but the cubs had opportunities and couldnt execute because our pitching did not allow it. I dont understand how you cant understand this simple concept. Strike outs have killed you guys. Its like every time you guys had an opportunity your guys would go down swinging to take you guys right out of the opportunity to score. Familia came in and shut the door two games in a row.

Yeah, you guys swept us 0-2. Sucks MLB changed the format of the NLCS to best out of 3. No reason to even play the games tonight. MLB has canceled them all. Good luck sweeping KC in the WS.

 

[Midwaymonster75]

Yeah, you guys swept us 0-2. Sucks MLB changed the format of the NLCS to best out of 3. No reason to even play the games tonight. MLB has canceled them all. Good luck sweeping KC in the WS.

3-0