Cub's Prospect Watch And Development Discussion Thread

[CSF77]

The fences were brought in last year. Not the same situation anymore.

Btw Pads won 3-1. Cash looked good. Kept them in until Ryu got out. Ryu was going to a curve after the 1st time through. Pretty much dominate then 3rd time added his change. Finally gassed out after 85 pitches

Cash was dominate but got his pitch count up earlier than expected.

Seems that the Pads are expected to contend. Pitching is very good and the pen has always been solid. Grandal looks to be back from his ACL. Maybe a dark horse wild card pick.

 

[patg006]

I don't think Milwaukee was planning on rebuilding when they signed him, coming off a 96-66 season and a division title and all.

EXCEPT they lost Prince Fielder and knew they were going to be able to keep Zack Greinke past that year.

Rebuilding was staring them right in the face.

 

[Boobaby1]

2012 Cashner had a 4.27 ERA and pitching in wrigley likely would have made that far worse given his decently high HR/FB ratio in years prior to 2013. Also he pitched 46 innings. Maholm had a 3.67 ERA in 2012. To sit here today and say that having Cashner replaces the needs of pitching is entirely revisionist. There's no guarantee that Cashner would have pitched well for the cubs in 2012 and there's quite a bit of evidence to suggest Cashner's strong 2013 season is strongly influenced by pitching in San Diego in half his games.

But there is a guarantee that the Cubs are missing pitching and scrambling trying to find it now for the future. It's not revisionist history to say that starting pitching is harder to find than a 1st basemen.

The Red Sox, Pirates, Rays, Dodgers, Nats, Cardinals, Braves, and A's to name some are going to be tough because of their pitching, not who they have at 1st base.

Pitching wins out over positional players every time, all the time.

 

[patg006]

and there's quite a bit of evidence to suggest Cashner's strong 2013 season is strongly influenced by pitching in San Diego in half his games.

And there is quite a bit of evidence to suggest Cashner's 'weak' 2013 road numbers are still an improvement over Jeff Samardzija.

Cashner's 'terrible' road numbers were a 4.00 ERA and a 1.26 WHIP.

You fanboys try and make it sound like he was Edwin Jackson or something on the road.

He would clearly be the ace on this team.

 

[beckdawg]

But there is a guarantee that the Cubs are missing pitching and scrambling trying to find it now for the future. It's not revisionist history to say that starting pitching is harder to find than a 1st basemen.

You're taking my comment out of context. His statement was Maholm in 2012 wasn't needed because they had Cashner. Whether or not Cashner is more valuable long term than Rizzo is an entirely different debate. It's entirely possibly he may be but as I've suggested before, until he puts up a half way decent road split I'm not viewing him any higher than I would someone like Wood. Regardless, to suggest someone who threw 46 innings that year can replace Maholm in my opinion quite naive.

 

[beckdawg]

Would Rizzo hitting in one of the best hitters park not influenced him? Rizzo still had a bad year.

As I said, this comment had nothing to do with Rizzo vs Cashner.

 

[patg006]

until he puts up a half way decent road split

He already has.

 

[CSF77]

You're taking my comment out of context. His statement was Maholm in 2012 wasn't needed because they had Cashner. Whether or not Cashner is more valuable long term than Rizzo is an entirely different debate. It's entirely possibly he may be but as I've suggested before, until he puts up a half way decent road split I'm not viewing him any higher than I would someone like Wood. Regardless, to suggest someone who threw 46 innings that year can replace Maholm in my opinion quite naive.

I said they have depth that year.

To start they had:

Dempster
Garza
Zambrano
Cashner
Wells

They added Wood who they felt needed more seasoning.
They added Maholm
Wells went to AAA.
Z was traded out but had a strong 1st half.
Cashner was traded


Now lets just say they did nothing.

Rotation would have been:

Dempster
Garza
Zambrano
Cashner
Shark (they still decide to convert him)

Wood in AAA with Wells still.

Cashner hits DL. Wells comes up.
Garza hits DL Wood comes up.

Now you have 2 expiring contracts in Z (who is having a good 1st half and Dempster who was looking like an ace that year. In AAA they had the 2 lefties who came up for spurts. They could have cashed in on Dempster still to get Hendricks.

The next year we would have had Wood and Cashner's strong years at the same time. Shark would have been #3 and pitched 200 IP but against teams #3's vs #1's.

Didn't ha[pen.

But the reality here is they gave up Cashner added Maholm. Traded Malholm and got Arodys Vizcaino.

Cashner pitched 175 IP last year vs a full DL shelving of Vizcaino.

Now if Vizcaino bounces back this year and becomes a front line SP and Rizzo becomes a top 10 1B. Sure Theo made a genius move.

But my opinion of the deal is Jed has a man crush on Rizzo and made a man crush move.

 

[beckdawg]

@CSF77

All I'm saying is I see your argument more for 2013 and Feldman than 2012 and Maholm. I think they needed Maholm regardless of what they did with Cashner. There is a reason he only pitched 46 innings in 2012. Had they kept Cashner then in 2013 maybe you don't need Feldman. That being said, having LaHair long term at 1B until seemingly Vogelbach is ready not that desirable. And as for free agents, there's not been a bunch of great options. LaRoche was an ok FA prior to last season but he also got $12 mil per season for 2 years. Loney was a bit of a steal for the rays at $2 mil but I'm sure no one here would have been in favor of him at the time. There of course was Pujols and Fielder but it's obvious based on what they did with cutting payroll that they weren't realistic options.

In the end, had they kept Cashner they would likely have a better staff but a remarkably bad offense. And even if pitching is more desirable than offense in the grand scheme of wins I don't see it changing anything. I'm not going to speculate on their thinking but they have been able to find viable pitching replacements for Cashner in Maholm and Feldman but they simply have been fairly poor at adding offense.

I guess I just don't see the angst some(not saying you just in general) have. Cashner had 5 years with the cubs to prove himself and he frankly didn't. Exactly how long do you wait on someone to break out?

 

[patg006]

In the end, had they kept Cashner they would likely have a better staff but a remarkably bad offense.

They have a remarkably bad offense now.

And don't even start that it would be worse without Rizzo.

The numbers Rizzo has provided are extremely easy to replace at 1B.

At least they would have better pitching.

Cashner had 5 years with the cubs to prove himself and he frankly didn't. Exactly how long do you wait on someone to break out?

Wrong as usual.

He was drafted in 2008 and pitched 20 innings in 2008.

He spent only one full year in the minors in 2009.

In 2010 he pitched in 53 games for the Cubs at the Major League Level.

And by January of 2012 he was traded to the Padres.

He spent less than 4 calendar years in the Cubs organization from the day he was drafted and that is too long to wait for a player to break out??

Rizzo was drafted the year before Cashner was but apparently it is logical to keep waiting for him to break out.

 

[justaChifan]

It's only the first game.

The right, tradable pieces, performed.

Just think of losing as winning

 

[CSF77]

@CSF77

All I'm saying is I see your argument more for 2013 and Feldman than 2012 and Maholm. I think they needed Maholm regardless of what they did with Cashner. There is a reason he only pitched 46 innings in 2012. Had they kept Cashner then in 2013 maybe you don't need Feldman. That being said, having LaHair long term at 1B until seemingly Vogelbach is ready not that desirable. And as for free agents, there's not been a bunch of great options. LaRoche was an ok FA prior to last season but he also got $12 mil per season for 2 years. Loney was a bit of a steal for the rays at $2 mil but I'm sure no one here would have been in favor of him at the time. There of course was Pujols and Fielder but it's obvious based on what they did with cutting payroll that they weren't realistic options.

In the end, had they kept Cashner they would likely have a better staff but a remarkably bad offense. And even if pitching is more desirable than offense in the grand scheme of wins I don't see it changing anything. I'm not going to speculate on their thinking but they have been able to find viable pitching replacements for Cashner in Maholm and Feldman but they simply have been fairly poor at adding offense.

I guess I just don't see the angst some(not saying you just in general) have. Cashner had 5 years with the cubs to prove himself and he frankly didn't. Exactly how long do you wait on someone to break out?

It comes down to they degraded the rotation trading Z out and bringing in Volsuck. They were allready trying to turn over right away. That trade had nothing to do with winning. It was a team feel good move. They got out of Dempster as soon as they could. They signed Maholm as trade goods.

There was an illustration about this. They were something like 42-93 post trade deadline and around a .428% pre. Think it was .365 post trades over the last 2 years.

That means the goal was to build up trade value the first half and sell it off and tank the season to get a better draft pick. They had that planned from the start.

Holding onto Rammy was not a part of that strat.

 

[CSF77]

That being said them signing Jackson was surprising. I get the Sanchez attempt. He was an legit 1/2. Jackson was a knee jerk move.

Following year made a stab at Masahiro Tanaka. I'm glad they went there but again players are seeing how the Cubs are just renting players as trade goods. With Maholm he signs a 2 year and they sell high. Then this idea comes up where they can use low point value SP as trade chips.

It was not about winning at all.

 

[beckdawg]

It comes down to they degraded the rotation trading Z out and bringing in Volsuck. They were allready trying to turn over right away. That trade had nothing to do with winning. It was a team feel good move. They got out of Dempster as soon as they could. They signed Maholm as trade goods.

I just don't really see holding on to zambrano as every being a realistic option. He wasn't particularly good in 2012 or the year prior and hasn't pitched in the majors since not to mention the obvious personality issues there. I suppose you could make the argument for him being similar to what Jackson gave the cubs in 2013 but again I'm not sure that makes them any better. I'm not sure they would be that much worse either but Volstad was a young pitcher(25) who had pitched at a similar level to Zambrano the prior year. Clearly they were hoping for a Wood like deal and didn't get that.

At the end of the day I just don't see the point in this type of mental exercise. Even if you say Ramirez was the 5.7 WAR player he was with the Brewers what's that make the cubs? That's maybe a high 60's low 70's win 2012 and a mid 70's win team in 2013. And more importantly, Zambrano and Ramirez really don't offer anything towards a longer term team when you would hope to be more competitive. So, it's a largely irrelevant discussion.

 

[patg006]

I just don't really see holding on to zambrano as every being a realistic option.

I really don't see paying Zambrano's full salary to have him pitch for another team and get one of the five worst pitchers in all of baseball in return in Chris Volstad as an improvement.

And more importantly, Zambrano and Ramirez really don't offer anything towards a longer term team when you would hope to be more competitive. So, it's a largely irrelevant discussion.

And what long term benefits did Chris Volstad and Ian Stewart bring to the team?

Other then the long term losing the team has dug itself into.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

I really don't see paying Zambrano's full salary to have him pitch for another team and get one of the five worst pitchers in all of baseball in return in Chris Volstad as an improvement.



And what long term benefits did Chris Volstad and Ian Stewart bring to the team?

Other then the long term losing the team has dug itself into.

Volstad, Zambrano, Stewart, Colvin are all not playing in the majors, and Lemahiieu is at best a utility player.

I am not sure why anyone thinks of any of these deals as either good or bad, but just minor moves where both teams thought they were getting lightning in a bottle and neither team got their lightning.

Its a wash.

 

[SilenceS]

Volstad, Zambrano, Stewart, Colvin are all not playing in the majors, and Lemahiieu is at best a utility player.

I am not sure why anyone thinks of any of these deals as either good or bad, but just minor moves where both teams thought they were getting lightning in a bottle and neither team got their lightning.

Its a wash.

Lemahieu is the starting second baseman for the Rockies.

 

[Flacco4Prez]

And if he were on the Cubs he would be out of a job in months

 

[SilenceS]

And if he were on the Cubs he would be out of a job in months

BArney would have been out of a job two years ago.

 

[chibears55]

So for all the complaining here about some of the deals made 2 -3 yrs ago about players not even in the game today , it comes down to could've had LeMahieu over Barney now. Yet I bet most of you were all on the Barney train in 2012 when he was winning the GG and hitting a bit.
I think its time to move on from the crocodile tears from these minor moves made then and as a fan focus more on what going on now and their near future

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T217A using Tapatalk