Heyward to Cubs!

[DanTown]

I don't think anyone's taken the time to research it out. Here is what I found which leads to 1/5 slumping. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/436001-sophomore-slump-truth-or-cliche

Here's another:

http://www.fangraphs.com/plus/the-sophomore-slump/

And Another with 64% of ROY declining in year 2.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/the-sophomore-slump/

The cliche is there and it's for a reason.

To the bold: because it's likely there is no causation to the idea that sophomore players slump at a rate more than other year players of similar caliber. The other reason a "sophomore" slump may exist is that by the true definition of statistics, if your outlier career year is your first year, you obviously will regress due to things beyond your control.

Obviously second year players slump. But so do third year players. So do fourth year players. So do fifth year players. So do a lot of guys. Sophomores are not the only players that fail to progress from their previous year. The idea that the Cubs will be worse because they're built up of some rookies/2nd year players is hysterical. If the Cubs lose 70+ games (which means they're not a 90 win team), it's going to be regression from more than at most five (Schwarber, Bryant, Russell, Baez, and Soler) guys. Hell, the player that is most likely to regress (Jake Arrieta) isn't a sophomore.

Here are the five guys and their fWAR
Bryant - 6.5
Russell - 2.9
Schwarber (70 games) - 1.9
Baez (28 games) - .5
Soler - .1

If you double Schwarber (140 games, 540 PA) and give Baez 400 PA (X5), that would give you a total WAR off last year's production of 15.8. So I'll ask: is that group's fWAR collectively going to be above 15.8 or below? 15.8 and higher is progression and anything lower is regression.

And to what Mississippi said: even IF you wanted to argue sophomore slumps are real, I'd expect that based on draft position (and the four guys drafted there are all top 15 picks and former top 25 prospects) and prospect value reduces the likelyhood of second year regression.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

I disagree. But time will tell.

I like to really give you the benefit of the doubt Brett but time won't tell in this case. Your assertion is that no one sees him as an everyday player. Here's an example from Baseball Prospectus a little over a year ago that calls him a potential All Star:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/prospects/eyewitness_bat.php?reportid=161

McKinney is going to hit no matter how the rest of his profile ends up, and his on-base skills are strong enough to make him a plus offensive player. Just how much better than league average will depend on his power. He continually puts himself in good hitting situations, which should allow his power to play up. He doesn't have huge raw power, but the ball carries off of his bat and he should be a 20-homer hitter.

It's a tougher profile if he ends up in left field, but even there, hitting close to .300 with 20 home runs and strong on-base skills will work. If he can remain in center field for a few years, it will play even better and makes him a potential all-star.

There is some risk with McKinney because he's not yet 20 years old, but there is no doubting the hit tool, which has held up to an aggressive challenge in his first full professional season. The hit tool will carry him to the majors with the rest of the tools determining his success.

Again your assertion was not that he may not be an everyday player but rather that no one thinks about him that way. The former is definitely possible, and you are correct in that time will tell that, but the latter is untrue and time has nothing to do with it. While there are some that doubt his ability to stick in MLB as a starter there are plenty of scouts and scouting reports that think he will be an everyday player and even, as in the above, a potential All Star.

 

[brett05]

I like to really give you the benefit of the doubt Brett but time won't tell in this case. Your assertion is that no one sees him as an everyday player. Here's an example from Baseball Prospectus a little over a year ago that calls him a potential All Star:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/prospects/eyewitness_bat.php?reportid=161

McKinney is going to hit no matter how the rest of his profile ends up, and his on-base skills are strong enough to make him a plus offensive player. Just how much better than league average will depend on his power. He continually puts himself in good hitting situations, which should allow his power to play up. He doesn't have huge raw power, but the ball carries off of his bat and he should be a 20-homer hitter.

It's a tougher profile if he ends up in left field, but even there, hitting close to .300 with 20 home runs and strong on-base skills will work. If he can remain in center field for a few years, it will play even better and makes him a potential all-star.

There is some risk with McKinney because he's not yet 20 years old, but there is no doubting the hit tool, which has held up to an aggressive challenge in his first full professional season. The hit tool will carry him to the majors with the rest of the tools determining his success.

Again your assertion was not that he may not be an everyday player but rather that no one thinks about him that way. The former is definitely possible, and you are correct in that time will tell that, but the latter is untrue and time has nothing to do with it. While there are some that doubt his ability to stick in MLB as a starter there are plenty of scouts and scouting reports that think he will be an everyday player and even, as in the above, a potential All Star.

Let's say my point was toward MLB GM's. But i take your point.

 

[brett05]

To the bold: because it's likely there is no causation to the idea that sophomore players slump at a rate more than other year players of similar caliber. The other reason a "sophomore" slump may exist is that by the true definition of statistics, if your outlier career year is your first year, you obviously will regress due to things beyond your control.

Obviously second year players slump. But so do third year players. So do fourth year players. So do fifth year players. So do a lot of guys. Sophomores are not the only players that fail to progress from their previous year. The idea that the Cubs will be worse because they're built up of some rookies/2nd year players is hysterical. If the Cubs lose 70+ games (which means they're not a 90 win team), it's going to be regression from more than at most five (Schwarber, Bryant, Russell, Baez, and Soler) guys. Hell, the player that is most likely to regress (Jake Arrieta) isn't a sophomore.

Here are the five guys and their fWAR
Bryant - 6.5
Russell - 2.9
Schwarber (70 games) - 1.9
Baez (28 games) - .5
Soler - .1

If you double Schwarber (140 games, 540 PA) and give Baez 400 PA (X5), that would give you a total WAR off last year's production of 15.8. So I'll ask: is that group's fWAR collectively going to be above 15.8 or below? 15.8 and higher is progression and anything lower is regression.

And to what Mississippi said: even IF you wanted to argue sophomore slumps are real, I'd expect that based on draft position (and the four guys drafted there are all top 15 picks and former top 25 prospects) and prospect value reduces the likelyhood of second year regression.

The ROY link shows it to be more than a myth my friend. And that addresses the higher caliber players themselves. ROY is not the same as MVP.

You tell me any team with five rookies who are now qualified as sophomores without injury (that eliminates Soler) are going to produce better, I will live off of the under.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

Let's say my point was toward MLB GM's. But i take your point.

Yeah but MLB GMs don't agree on much. There's been nothing more entertaining than watching GM reaction to the Heyward signing. I will agree with you that his worth in a trade is debatable but I also would almost guarantee that there is more than one FO who loves him. Billy Beane has been said to have asked for him back in every single trade discussion they've had since he was moved to the Cubs.

 

[DanTown]

The ROY link shows it to be more than a myth my friend. And that addresses the higher caliber players themselves. ROY is not the same as MVP.

You tell me any team with five rookies who are now qualified as sophomores without injury (that eliminates Soler) are going to produce better, I will live off of the under.

Winning ROY does not equate to a player's value, it's a measure of one season. I mean we have no idea if the player who won ROY outpaced or matched his projections.

Chris Coghlan won the ROY as a former player who never was a top 100 prospect, didn't break camp with the MLB team, was a 36th overall pick who had a .365 BABIP and now has a career BABIP of .314. His ROY of the year was CLEARLY ahead of any projection that said he'd have a year like that. It's super likely that regression happens in that case.

Kris Bryant won ROY as a former top five overall pick who's numbers were incredibly close to his pre-season projections. Even if he does regress and doesn't post another 6.5 fWAR season, he probably will not fall off a cliff as his value as a prospect was much greater than Coghlan so it's more likely he repeats his rookie year than Chris would have been.

Again, you seem to be arguing that SPECIFICALLY sophomore slumps will hurt the Cubs. If you were to look at the Cubs, that would be four players. While some will regress because player's careers aren't linear, their regression will likely be eaten up by the addition of other players (i.e Jason Heyward in and Dexter Fowler out). The clear obvious regression is from Jake Arrieta, who posted a 7.3 WAR season after projecting to be around 4.8.

The reason people give more value to sophomore slumps is that rookie years are most likely to have the most outlier in them. Plus, there are more rookies that exceed expectations because more rookies/unknowns get playing time. You have proven to me that ROY players regress; you haven't proven at what rate and what is the cause of the regression.

Hell, here is what ZIPS says

Bryant - 5.6
Schwarber - 2.6
Soler - 1.2
Baez - 1.1 (1.7 if 400PA)
Russell - 2.1

TOTAL - 12.6 (13.2 from above with Baez PA)

That's not going to cause a dip in team performance. There are SOOOOOOOO many other places to look for regression on the Cubs than those four guys and with a regression model (sophomore slumps) that has no predictive value.

 

[brett05]

Winning ROY does not equate to a player's value, it's a measure of one season. I mean we have no idea if the player who won ROY outpaced or matched his projections.

Chris Coghlan won the ROY as a former player who never was a top 100 prospect, didn't break camp with the MLB team, was a 36th overall pick who had a .365 BABIP and now has a career BABIP of .314. His ROY of the year was CLEARLY ahead of any projection that said he'd have a year like that. It's super likely that regression happens in that case.

Kris Bryant won ROY as a former top five overall pick who's numbers were incredibly close to his pre-season projections. Even if he does regress and doesn't post another 6.5 fWAR season, he probably will not fall off a cliff as his value as a prospect was much greater than Coghlan so it's more likely he repeats his rookie year than Chris would have been.

Again, you seem to be arguing that SPECIFICALLY sophomore slumps will hurt the Cubs. If you were to look at the Cubs, that would be four players. While some will regress because player's careers aren't linear, their regression will likely be eaten up by the addition of other players (i.e Jason Heyward in and Dexter Fowler out). The clear obvious regression is from Jake Arrieta, who posted a 7.3 WAR season after projecting to be around 4.8.

The reason people give more value to sophomore slumps is that rookie years are most likely to have the most outlier in them. Plus, there are more rookies that exceed expectations because more rookies/unknowns get playing time. You have proven to me that ROY players regress; you haven't proven at what rate and what is the cause of the regression.

Hell, here is what ZIPS says

Bryant - 5.6
Schwarber - 2.6
Soler - 1.2
Baez - 1.1 (1.7 if 400PA)
Russell - 2.1

TOTAL - 12.6 (13.2 from above with Baez PA)

That's not going to cause a dip in team performance. There are SOOOOOOOO many other places to look for regression on the Cubs than those four guys and with a regression model (sophomore slumps) that has no predictive value.

My comments are only directed to the sophomores doing better in 2016 as has been stated by just about every single poster on this board since the playoffs have ended. It just doesn't work that way. And I've shown that with the links provided.

 

[brett05]

Yeah but MLB GMs don't agree on much. There's been nothing more entertaining than watching GM reaction to the Heyward signing. I will agree with you that his worth in a trade is debatable but I also would almost guarantee that there is more than one FO who loves him. Billy Beane has been said to have asked for him back in every single trade discussion they've had since he was moved to the Cubs.

IMO, If the love was there, the Cubs would have shipped him off for a need. He's not been sent. I think the FO of the Cubs may value him high but it appears right now no one else does. Again, imo.

 

[DanTown]

My comments are only directed to the sophomores doing better in 2016 as has been stated by just about every single poster on this board since the playoffs have ended. It just doesn't work that way. And I've shown that with the links provided.

It's incredibly likely Bryant and Schwarber regress while Baez/Russell progress. But again, the Cubs are not built on Bryant/Schwarber being outlier hitters.

Also, I'd love to see the evaluation of similar prospects to Bryant/Schwarber in their second years instead of you saying that ROY slump ergo all sophomores slump. Also, if Bryant "regresses" to a 5.5 WAR player, do the Cubs lose a ton more games?

 

[JP Hochbaum]

You can't really make the claim that the Cubs rookie class will likely go into a sophomore slump or that they will perform like previous rookies.

This same argument was made when they were coming up and that some of them would be busts.

But yet one could argue that not one of them, outside of Alcantara, has been worthy of being called a bust. Theo's track record with this crop is different, they have different scouts, different algorithms. and an overall better system that makes them heads and shoulders above the rest, and comparing that to averages is just not accurate.

 

[DanTown]

IMO, If the love was there, the Cubs would have shipped him off for a need. He's not been sent. I think the FO of the Cubs may value him high but it appears right now no one else does. Again, imo.

It's not an opinion that the Cubs hold McKinney at some value drastically higher than other teams or scouts; it's simply wrong because we know people outside the Cubs organization who highly value McKinney.

 

[brett05]

It's not an opinion that the Cubs hold McKinney at some value drastically higher than other teams or scouts; it's simply wrong because we know people outside the Cubs organization who highly value McKinney.

Not at the Big League Level.

 

[Hammer]

I expect to see 30+ HR and 80+ RBI season from Rizzo, Bryant and Schwarber, and also 15+ HR and 50+ RBI season from Heyward and Soler.
Arrietta should also have a solid season with around 3 ERA and 1.1 WHIP.

On the other hand, IMO, Baez could be exposed as a bust, and it could be a disappointing season from the vet players like Lester, Lackey and Zobrist.

 

[DanTown]

Not at the Big League Level.

Well he's not in the big leagues so we're talking about projections. And once again, it's a widely held opinion among people NOT in the Cubs organization that McKinney will be a solid big leaguer. There are numerous scouting reports (written outside the organization) talking him up. There are reports that teams like Beane have tried to trade for him. Can you please point me in the direction of evidence from other teams that don't rate McKinney?

 

[brett05]

Well he's not in the big leagues so we're talking about projections. And once again, it's a widely held opinion among people NOT in the Cubs organization that McKinney will be a solid big leaguer. There are numerous scouting reports (written outside the organization) talking him up. There are reports that teams like Beane have tried to trade for him. Can you please point me in the direction of evidence from other teams that don't rate McKinney?

Lack of non cub sources rumoring about him.

 

[DJMoore_is_fat]

I expect to see 30+ HR and 80+ RBI season from Rizzo, Bryant and Schwarber, and also 15+ HR and 50+ RBI season from Heyward and Soler.
Arrietta should also have a solid season with around 3 ERA and 1.1 WHIP.

On the other hand, IMO, Baez could be exposed as a bust, and it could be a disappointing season from the vet players like Lester, Lackey and Zobrist.

Rizzo will get a heck of ton more RBIs with Zorbrist/Heyward in front of him. Both those guys are .350+ OBP. He should have no problems go well beyond 100 RBIs.

 

[fatbeard]

It's called the Sophomore Slump.

In the category of anachronistic and statistically dubious baseball-isms, "the Sophomore Slump" is filed next to "the Will to Win."

 

[Parade_Rain]

Sophomore Slump is a term for the music business, not baseball.

 

[SilenceS]

Lack of non cub sources rumoring about him.

Links?

 

[beckdawg]

I don't think anyone sees Mckinney as an everyday MLB starter.

Think we need to have two discussions here. There's an every day starter and then there's a first division starter. Those are two separate talent levels. For example, most scouting on Villanueva I have read is that he can start in the majors it's just that if you're a playoff team you want better. And while it's some what fair to question the value of the non-first division starters, years of control are years of control. I mean the 2015 braves are essentially trying to be the 2012 cubs here. I wont pretend that I have intimate knowledge of the braves minor leagues but if we look at their present top 30 according to MLB.com it goes like this

#1 Dansby Swanson - SS ETA: 2018
#3 Ozhaino Albies - SS ETA: 2018
#12 Rio Ruiz - 3B ETA: 2016
#13 Braxton Davidson - OF(corner) ETA: 2018
#17 Mallex Smith - CF ETA: 2016
#18 Lucas Herbert - C ETA: 2019
#19 Dustin Peterson - LF ETA: 2017
#20 Austin Riley - 3B ETA: N/A(likely 2019)
#24 Johan Camargo - SS ETA: 2017

21 of their top 30 players are pitchers. Let that sink in for a bit... pretty nuts eh? And most of their hitting is scheduled to hit the majors in the 2018+ range. Outside of Inciarte, their OF is super old. Hector Olivera is 31 though new to the majors as an international signing. Bourn is 33. Swisher is 36. Bonifacio is 31. Adonis Garcia is 31. You could in theory role McKinney out in LF, Mallex Smith in CF and Inciarte in RF by say midseason. and that would cover you for awhile. Likewise, they are probably currently looking at Gordon Beckham or Adonis Garcia as their starting 3B. Having someone like Candelario to plug in there for a few years while you get back on your feat is nice.

Either way here, the meat of the deal I was suggesting was always going to be Jimenez. He's not super high on most fans radar at the moment because he's 18. However, he was thought to be a better prospect than Torres who's presently a top 40 prospect for the cubs when both signed. And it's not like Jimenez has played bad he's just not adapted quite as quickly as Torres did. He hit .284/.328/.418 with 7 HRs and 33 RBIs in 250 PAs at short season A- as an 18 year old. That's a league where you're largely going to face college age players out of the draft this season.

So, to get 2-3 useful players(Wood, McKinney and maybe Candelario) while getting rid of a bad contract in Bourn and getting one potential impact bat in Jimenez seems like you're doing pretty well trade wise. Obviously if you view Teheran as a budding #1 pitcher then that's probably a bit low but if we put a value on him similar to say Garza that seems about right for value. The cubs got two useful bullpen pitchers in Grimm and Ramirez plus Olt who could have been useful if he played better plus the meat of the deal which was Edwards.