Cubs Spring Training Discussion Thread

[DewsSox79]

All happenings including rumors, injuries, position changes etc here

 

[patg006]

All happenings including rumors, injuries, position changes etc here

Just remember one thing. Only cubs prospects pan out. And they're worth more than all the gold and platinum in the world.

Anything else is just unrealistic.

:fap:

 

[DewsSox79]

Just remember one thing. Only cubs prospects pan out. And they're worth more than all the gold and platinum in the world.

Anything else is just unrealistic.

:fap:

hah!!!

 

[czman]

1 week away. Hopefully we have something to cheer about this season.

 

[Mr. Cub]

1 week away. Hopefully we have something to cheer about this season.

Hopefully, but unlikely. I just hope we keep the L column below 100.

 

[KBIB]

1 week away. Hopefully we have something to cheer about this season.

Over 100 losses?


13-3!!!

 

[patg006]

Over 100 losses?


13-3!!!

I'd bet on it.


Creme

 

[dabynsky]

I'd bet on it.


Creme

I'd take that bet...

 

[KBIB]

I'd take that bet...

You really don't think the trash Theo has assembled right now isn't going to lose 100 games?

For that to happen everything would have to go perfectly for the Cubs and everything wrong for whoever it is they play against. I have come to the conclusion the Cubs either bring up all these so called super prospects a bit sooner instead of protecting themselves from starting their arbitration clocks or Cub fans will be shafted until they hammer out some sort of resolution with the morons across the street who think they are entitled to a view because of the location.

I find it funny that the RTO bullshit seems to factor into the Cubs bringing up these prospects. If it doesn't, it sure as **** feels that way right now.


13-3!!!

 

[dabynsky]

No I don't think this a 100 loss team as it stands right now. Is it within the realm of possibilities? Certainly it is a possible outcome, but most of the projections have the Cubs anywhere from 67-78 wins. I would place the win total much closer to the lower end, but I think a lot would have to go wrong for them to underachieve to the 100 loss level.

 

[KBIB]

No I don't think this a 100 loss team as it stands right now. Is it within the realm of possibilities? Certainly it is a possible outcome, but most of the projections have the Cubs anywhere from 67-78 wins. I would place the win total much closer to the lower end, but I think a lot would have to go wrong for them to underachieve to the 100 loss level.

You have a very optimistic opinion and I applaud you for it. And as much as I would like to think Theo can put together a winning formula instead of putting all of his focus into prospecting, I cant agree with you. This team as it stands right now has a severe black hole in the middle of the line up and I don't see Rizzo being anything but Jed and Theo's boy that they don't wish to allow another GM from taking credit for if he actually lives up to his potential. And right now, I see the hole in his swing more clearer then the translucent potential. Throw in Castro and right there, two building blocks are hitting the mediocre stage a lot earlier then what was projected. Now, I know they got good years from the scraps they brought in, but honestly, I don't expect the same type of production.

Olt will be a fine defensive third baseman, and as much as I want to say he tops out as a knockoff Scott Rolen, I think about how the Rangers threw him into a deal to sweeten it and the Cubs drafted the best third base prospect in the entire draft last year. Baez is going to be good....but if Castro is healthy, where does he play? And don't give me this switching positions bullshit only fanboi's like to make up, the kid is a shortstop. Could they trade him? Sure they could, but they better swindle the team they trade either him or Castro to.

Honestly, and this isn't directed at you at all, but I see this team staying in the shits until they get that scoreboard. I think Ricketts plan is to bankrupt the RTO's with a shit team until he has complete control. Conspiracy? Who knows. Maybe I watch too many illuminati youtubes, but I don't for a second think the Cubs tried hard for the Japanese pitcher and from the looks of it they really aren't trying too hard to field a competitive team. All these prospects everybody seems to queef over have to be brought up sooner or later. If its later, then I would chuckle mightily when they start losing some of them thru Rule 5. Filling up your minor leagues at every level over the course of a limited time frame has a way of back firing.


13-3!!!

 

[dabynsky]

It has nothing to do with optimism. Optimism would be believing that this team was going to threaten .500 like the ZiPS projections have. The team underperformed its limited talent level the past two seasons under Sveum, and even then the roster didn't even average a 100 losses. As you said two of the early 20s position players on the major league severely regressed. If the position is that those are just ging to continue to get worse and worse than I guess I can see why you have such a bleak view of next season. However, the team has improved the bullpen, and the options in case of injury/trade are dramatically better than two years ago. Again possible that it all collapses like it has the past two years, but I hardly think the true talent level of the team reflects that. Look at the rosters Houston has trotted the past three seasons because those are 100 loss teams.

 

[beckdawg]

I tend to believe this team is a lot closer to 70-75 wins than 60. People talk about the hole at the #4 slot but fail to realize how bad Soriano was there with the cubs last year. They talk about the loss of Garza when he only started 11 admittedly good games. Wood is likely to regress though the question is how much. Schierholtz might regress some as well. However, those losses are offset by the fact that Barney and Castro had horrendous years. They were around 4A level players last year. Shark had a down year. Jackson had a down year. Rizzo was better than people give him credit for but was still below what you'd expect given his peripherals. The bull pen was one of the worst in the majors last season.

So, the way I see it, a lot did go wrong for the cubs last year. Let's not be delusional here, they aren't likely to approach 80 wins. But, if they tread water and are not flat out horrible by the trade deadline they will get Alcantara and Baez in all likelihood and possibly Bryant as well. That's what 40% of a season with those potential impact players? And last year after the deadline the team stunk.

If Shark, Castro and Rizzo have similarly bad years then yeah they got a shot at 60 wins. However, if you say any teams top 3 young players have down years you're generally talking 5-10 wins. To me the difference between the 2013 team and the 2014 team is if things went right with the 2013 team they actually had a shot at 80 wins. If Garza had pitched a whole season and Soriano was the 2012 player along with the younger guys playing well they had a chance to be a half way decent team. Obviously that didn't happen. The players that are on the 25 man roster to start this year have a much lower ceiling but the floor is probably a similar level.

People have brought up the 2003 Tigers with regard to this cubs team. So as such I think we should look at the difference between that team and this cubs team.

Nate Cornejo - 4.67 ERA 2.13 k/9 2.68 bb/9 1.6 WAR
Jeremy Bonderman - 5.56 ERA 6.00 k/9 3.22 bb/9 1.2 WAR
Mike Maroth - 5.73 ERA 4.05 k/9 2.33 bb/9 0.4 WAR
Gary Knotts/Nate Robertson/Shane Loux/Chris Mears - 6.04/5.44/7.12/5.44 ERA 4.81/6.65/2.37/4.57 k/9 4.44/4.63/3.56/2.40 bb/9 0.2/0.3/-0.3/0.1 WAR
Adam Bernero/Matt Roney/Wil Ledezma - 6.08/5.45/5.79 ERA 4.83/4.20/5.25 k/9 3.67/4.29/3.75 bb/9 0.5/-0.6/0.1 WAR

From a starting staff, their best pitcher, Cornejo, was roughly equivalent to Jackson(4.98 ERA 6.93 k/9 3.03 bb/9 2.0 WAR). Few would argue that Shark and Wood are both better than Jackson. Hammel was roughly equivalent to Jackson last year. And the 5th starter is a bit a of a mixed bag because we're not entirely sure who it will be. If we say Shark and Wood are slightly above average at 2.5 WAR, Jackson and Hammel end up at 2 WAR and the fifth is slightly below average at 1.5 WAR you get 10.5 WAR(what the cubs actually put up last year) to the 2003 tigers 3.5 WAR. That alone is 7 wins right there which would put you at 50.

The 2003 tigers relievers had the following stat line
553.0 IP 4.69 ERA 5.57 k/9 3.89 bb/9 -1.2 WAR

Last year's cubs relievers had the following stat line
474.0 IP 4.04 ERA 7.94 k/9 3.99 bb/9 -0.2 WAR

It's tough to project relievers year to year but I think most would agree the bull pen should be better in 2014 and the cubs in 2013 were better than the 2003 Tigers relievers. The median bullpen last year was worth 3.7 WAR. If the cubs in 2014 have a roughly average bullpen you're talking a +5 WAR over the tigers getting you to 55 wins.

Offensively the 2003 Tigers looked like this

C - Brandon Inge - .203/.265/.339 8 HRs 32 runs 30 RBIs 4 sb 0.7 WAR
1B - Carlos Pena - .248/.332/.440 18 HRs 51 runs 50 RBIs 4 sb 0.3 WAR
2B - Warren Morris - .272/.316/.373 6 HRs 37 runs 37 RBIs 4 sb 0.9 WAR
SS - Ramon Santiago - .225/.292/.284 2 HRs 41 runs 29 RBIs 10 sb -1.3 WAR
3B - Eric Munson - .240/.312/.441 18 HRs 28 runs 50 RBIs 3 sb 0.4 WAR
LF - Craig Monroe - .240/.287/.449 23 HRs 51 runs 70 RBIs 4 sb 0.6 WAR
CF - Alex Sanchez - .289/.320/.355 1 HRs 43 runs 22 RBIs 44 sb 0.0 WAR
RF - Bobby Higginson - .235/.320/.369 14 HRs 61 runs 52 RBIs 8 sb -0.3 WAR
DH - Dmitri Young - .297/.372/.537 29 HRs 78 runs 85 rbis 2 sb 2.0 WAR

Comparing that to the cubs is apples to oranges because of the DH. But if you look at the two teams entire offense(including pitchers hitting) it looked like this
Tigers - .240/.300/.375 153 HRs 591 runs 553 RBIs 98 SB -1.1 WAR
Cubs - .238/.300/.392 172 HRs 602 runs 576 RBIs 63 SB 16.9 WAR

It should also be noted that the above includes defense into the WAR totals of which the cubs were 5th best according to UZR. To get above 100 losses the cubs would need another 7 wins offensively over the tigers. As you can see last year they were 18 WAR higher. If their offense doesn't change and you add in the pitching I described above, WAR would expect a 73 win team. So, if you expect the pitching and offense to stay roughly the same but they in turn have a uptick in their bullpen last year you would get roughly a 70-75 win team. And you can make the argument that their offense overall with Castro, Barney and Rizzo all having poor years might be better not to mention the young hitters making an appearance later in the season.

WAR obviously isn't an exact science. Teams will often out perform or under perform it. But if you look objectively at how the team is worse and better it can show you that the loss of players like Garza and Soriano have relatively little impact on wins. They accounted for a grand total of 2.2 WAR for the cubs last year which roughly equates to an average player. This is because Soriano was pretty bad with the cubs and because Garza only made 11 starts. In order for the cubs to approach 100 losses they probably need signficant injuries to Castro, Rizzo, Wood and/or Shark. If you think about it, they had down years from the majority of their "best" players last year in Shark, Rizzo, Castro, Soriano, Garza(only because he was hurt and as such didn't get as many starts), Barney and Jackson. That accounts for their 4 best hitters in 2012, 2 of their top 4 pitchers(Maholm and Dempster being the other 2 and were gone) and their top FA signing. That's probably as close as you can come to a worst case barring an injury. A lot went wrong for the cubs in 2013 and they were far from lucky.

 

[patg006]

I tend to believe this team is a lot closer to 70-75 wins than 60. People talk about the hole at the #4 slot but fail to realize how bad Soriano was there with the cubs last year. They talk about the loss of Garza when he only started 11 admittedly good games. Wood is likely to regress though the question is how much. Schierholtz might regress some as well. However, those losses are offset by the fact that Barney and Castro had horrendous years. They were around 4A level players last year. Shark had a down year. Jackson had a down year. Rizzo was better than people give him credit for but was still below what you'd expect given his peripherals. The bull pen was one of the worst in the majors last season.

So, the way I see it, a lot did go wrong for the cubs last year. Let's not be delusional here, they aren't likely to approach 80 wins. But, if they tread water and are not flat out horrible by the trade deadline they will get Alcantara and Baez in all likelihood and possibly Bryant as well. That's what 40% of a season with those potential impact players? And last year after the deadline the team stunk.

If Shark, Castro and Rizzo have similarly bad years then yeah they got a shot at 60 wins. However, if you say any teams top 3 young players have down years you're generally talking 5-10 wins. To me the difference between the 2013 team and the 2014 team is if things went right with the 2013 team they actually had a shot at 80 wins. If Garza had pitched a whole season and Soriano was the 2012 player along with the younger guys playing well they had a chance to be a half way decent team. Obviously that didn't happen. The players that are on the 25 man roster to start this year have a much lower ceiling but the floor is probably a similar level.

People have brought up the 2003 Tigers with regard to this cubs team. So as such I think we should look at the difference between that team and this cubs team.

Nate Cornejo - 4.67 ERA 2.13 k/9 2.68 bb/9 1.6 WAR
Jeremy Bonderman - 5.56 ERA 6.00 k/9 3.22 bb/9 1.2 WAR
Mike Maroth - 5.73 ERA 4.05 k/9 2.33 bb/9 0.4 WAR
Gary Knotts/Nate Robertson/Shane Loux/Chris Mears - 6.04/5.44/7.12/5.44 ERA 4.81/6.65/2.37/4.57 k/9 4.44/4.63/3.56/2.40 bb/9 0.2/0.3/-0.3/0.1 WAR
Adam Bernero/Matt Roney/Wil Ledezma - 6.08/5.45/5.79 ERA 4.83/4.20/5.25 k/9 3.67/4.29/3.75 bb/9 0.5/-0.6/0.1 WAR

From a starting staff, their best pitcher, Cornejo, was roughly equivalent to Jackson(4.98 ERA 6.93 k/9 3.03 bb/9 2.0 WAR). Few would argue that Shark and Wood are both better than Jackson. Hammel was roughly equivalent to Jackson last year. And the 5th starter is a bit a of a mixed bag because we're not entirely sure who it will be. If we say Shark and Wood are slightly above average at 2.5 WAR, Jackson and Hammel end up at 2 WAR and the fifth is slightly below average at 1.5 WAR you get 10.5 WAR(what the cubs actually put up last year) to the 2003 tigers 3.5 WAR. That alone is 7 wins right there which would put you at 50.

The 2003 tigers relievers had the following stat line
553.0 IP 4.69 ERA 5.57 k/9 3.89 bb/9 -1.2 WAR

Last year's cubs relievers had the following stat line
474.0 IP 4.04 ERA 7.94 k/9 3.99 bb/9 -0.2 WAR

It's tough to project relievers year to year but I think most would agree the bull pen should be better in 2014 and the cubs in 2013 were better than the 2003 Tigers relievers. The median bullpen last year was worth 3.7 WAR. If the cubs in 2014 have a roughly average bullpen you're talking a +5 WAR over the tigers getting you to 55 wins.

Offensively the 2003 Tigers looked like this

C - Brandon Inge - .203/.265/.339 8 HRs 32 runs 30 RBIs 4 sb 0.7 WAR
1B - Carlos Pena - .248/.332/.440 18 HRs 51 runs 50 RBIs 4 sb 0.3 WAR
2B - Warren Morris - .272/.316/.373 6 HRs 37 runs 37 RBIs 4 sb 0.9 WAR
SS - Ramon Santiago - .225/.292/.284 2 HRs 41 runs 29 RBIs 10 sb -1.3 WAR
3B - Eric Munson - .240/.312/.441 18 HRs 28 runs 50 RBIs 3 sb 0.4 WAR
LF - Craig Monroe - .240/.287/.449 23 HRs 51 runs 70 RBIs 4 sb 0.6 WAR
CF - Alex Sanchez - .289/.320/.355 1 HRs 43 runs 22 RBIs 44 sb 0.0 WAR
RF - Bobby Higginson - .235/.320/.369 14 HRs 61 runs 52 RBIs 8 sb -0.3 WAR
DH - Dmitri Young - .297/.372/.537 29 HRs 78 runs 85 rbis 2 sb 2.0 WAR

Comparing that to the cubs is apples to oranges because of the DH. But if you look at the two teams entire offense(including pitchers hitting) it looked like this
Tigers - .240/.300/.375 153 HRs 591 runs 553 RBIs 98 SB -1.1 WAR
Cubs - .238/.300/.392 172 HRs 602 runs 576 RBIs 63 SB 16.9 WAR

It should also be noted that the above includes defense into the WAR totals of which the cubs were 5th best according to UZR. To get above 100 losses the cubs would need another 7 wins offensively over the tigers. As you can see last year they were 18 WAR higher. If their offense doesn't change and you add in the pitching I described above, WAR would expect a 73 win team. So, if you expect the pitching and offense to stay roughly the same but they in turn have a uptick in their bullpen last year you would get roughly a 70-75 win team. And you can make the argument that their offense overall with Castro, Barney and Rizzo all having poor years might be better not to mention the young hitters making an appearance later in the season.

WAR obviously isn't an exact science. Teams will often out perform or under perform it. But if you look objectively at how the team is worse and better it can show you that the loss of players like Garza and Soriano have relatively little impact on wins. They accounted for a grand total of 2.2 WAR for the cubs last year which roughly equates to an average player. This is because Soriano was pretty bad with the cubs and because Garza only made 11 starts. In order for the cubs to approach 100 losses they probably need signficant injuries to Castro, Rizzo, Wood and/or Shark. If you think about it, they had down years from the majority of their "best" players last year in Shark, Rizzo, Castro, Soriano, Garza(only because he was hurt and as such didn't get as many starts), Barney and Jackson. That accounts for their 4 best hitters in 2012, 2 of their top 4 pitchers(Maholm and Dempster being the other 2 and were gone) and their top FA signing. That's probably as close as you can come to a worst case barring an injury. A lot went wrong for the cubs in 2013 and they were far from lucky.

The Cubs cant score runs, and pulling up Sori's stat line is not the whole story. Soriano was protection, teams would pitch to Rizzo and not to Soriano. Now that changes, because if you're a pitcher, who are you going to throw something more hittable to? Nate the Great or Rizzo? Sori starts cold and gets hot in summer. Rizzo bit on every low and inside breaking pitch.

Regardless, I'll play along with you're ludicrous conjecture (even though WAR is the dumbest stat out there). So you're essentially saying that through the most inconsistent, incalculable stat in WAR the cubs are only 16 games better than the 03 Tigers. I don't buy it because the cubs pitching staff, for the most part overachieved sans bullpen. Pen should look better with no Marmol, but still punching bags.

It still has them at 103 losses. I won't say 119, but 110 sounds about right for this pathetic display of a AAA team.

Thanks for playing.

 

[CSF77]

I believe the key will be if Olt is past his vision issues and takes over 3B. If he can put up .800 OPS in the 4 hole the line up starts to take shape.

I believe that is a main key to if this team is going to have a sniff of winning more than 15 games come June. The Schedule in the first 2 months is pretty ruthless. NYY home and away. Heavy in division games with all better teams in the division. NLC is one of the better div's in baseball right now and the Cubs are the worst by far of them. I would circle the Cubs as a sweep with a slim chance that they take 1 of them in general.

If Olt provides the needed RH power void that was created by trading out Sori and Renta-manager proves early on that he wants to win first over develop so called future bats and excuses low production in vital spots in the line up. Yes the talent was pretty low last year and some key bats struggled.


But say leading Castro off and he puts up a .315 OBA is it justified because he is your so called star player of the future? I call that stupid and a loser mentality.

With every thing at best 20 wins by June. The team lacks talent in the line up. The staff proved to be pretty solid in ERA last year but that still kept them below .500 due to being one of the bottom 3 teams in RS. They lost Sori and have not replaced his impact to the line up.

If Olt chokes it ou of S/T I'll hang my hat on sup 30 wins by the ASG and start to hope Baez gets promoted and the get something out of Shark.

Other words a wasted season again.

 

[beckdawg]

I don't buy it because the cubs pitching staff, for the most part overachieved sans bullpen. Pen should look better with no Marmol, but still punching bags.

Shark and Jackson over achieved? I can agree Wood will regress but those 2 could very well have much better years which would off set that. Feldman pitched well though I'm not sure that he over achieved. He just had a down year in 2012 and went back to what he'd previously been. The 5th starter is a bit of a mixed bag last year and this year will likely be too.

As for protection, let's say you're right. Let's say he was protecting Rizzo and that in turn enabled him to get on base more. What did Soriano do after him? Because Soriano hit .254 with a .287 OBP with the cubs. It's not like Soriano was driving him in all the time. I can agree that the cubs are weak at #4 hitter but that doesn't mean Soriano made them any stronger there. Quite frankly he was pretty bad there last year for the cubs.

At this point they weren't a 100 loss team last year and that was with a large number of their players having bad years. It also had little impact from the minors where as 2014 could have 3 top 100 prospects seeing time(Bryant, Baez and Alcantara). I'd make the bet that at least one of them will have more production than Soriano did with the cubs last year. If Castro is just league average next year that's a huge improvement where as in 2013 he was replacement level. That's not even projecting him as good as he was in 2012. Presumably they have replacements for Barney if he plays like shit again. A below average player there is still a big improvement.

They aren't going to contend for 80-85 wins unless they are really lucky. At best they are as good talent wise as last year and probably worse. But last year their "talent" played like shit. So, if they years more similar to their career averages the team will be as good if not better. In order for them to be a 100-110 loss team those players(or whomever replaces them) will have to play as bad if not worse which I think is unlikely.

 

[beckdawg]

With every thing at best 20 wins by June.

They were 23-30 last year to start June and that was without Garza for all but the last 2 weeks of may as well as Soriano having a poor March-May. That's also with them struggling with their bullpen. I'm not saying the cubs will be amazing but to go 20-33 or however many games there will be by june next year you basically need to win 3 games out of 8. So, basically as long as they aren't swept in every series they have a decent shot.

 

[czman]

The over/under for the Cubs is 71, and I take the Under on that on. My guess is they will be right around 100 losses. If Lake craps out and Nate takes a step back they may have the worst starting OF ever assembled. I think this season could be worse than the last two. Unless they catch lightening in a bottle with a kid, whenever they can bring them up to save the extra year, the Cubs will probably have a worse record than last season.

 

[CSF77]

They were 23-30 last year to start June and that was without Garza for all but the last 2 weeks of may as well as Soriano having a poor March-May. That's also with them struggling with their bullpen. I'm not saying the cubs will be amazing but to go 20-33 or however many games there will be by june next year you basically need to win 3 games out of 8. So, basically as long as they aren't swept in every series they have a decent shot.

3 vs Pit away: 0-3
3 vs Phi at home: 1-5
3 vs Pit at home: 2-7
3 vs cards away: 2-10
2 vs Yanks away: 2-12
3 vs reds at home: 3-14
4 vs D-Backs at home 5-16
3 vs Brew away: 6-18
3 vs Reds away: 6-21 Apr over

May:
3 vs cards home 7-23
2 vs sox home: 8-24
2 vs sox away 9-25
3 vs Braves away: 9-28
4 vs Cards away: 10-31
2 vs Brews home 11-32
2 vs Yanks home: 12-33 (AL away advantage NL)
3 Pads away: 13-35
3 Giants away: 13-38
1 Brews away: 13-39

Seriously with this team it could get ugly really fast and we could get a few 10 game losing streaks.

20 is if they start to look like a AAAA team

 

[beckdawg]

Seriously with this team it could get ugly really fast and we could get a few 10 game losing streaks. 20 is if they start to look like a AAAA team

My point is simply that if it were as simple as you're making it then teams would often win 100 games. Some days teams will go out and just play terrible. If a pitcher just doesn't have it a given day they an lose to the cubs.