Offseason discussion/rumors

[Omeletpants]

 

[beckdawg]

Now I do not believe they will trade Schwarber but you know every team will be saying Schwarber then Baez.

For a Sale type pitcher sure but my thing his offseason has been the cubs shouldn't be trying to trade for that type of pitcher. The beauty of their roster is they don't need a #1 starter today. And even with Lackey and Arrieta FA's after next year they don't need a #1 starter next year. What they need is someone who has projection and can be a #3 starter in 2 years. From there the obvious hope would that player develops from a #3, to a #2 and finally a #1 over the next several years while Lester goes from #1ish back to #2 then #3.

And the good thing is it wont be all on whoever they get. Clifton finished A+ this year. You generally need a full year of AA and AAA to be ready for the majors. But he's not *that* far away. De La Cruz and Cease are a year behind him. Between Soler and Candelario the have pieces they can move. And if they are indeed intent on trying to bring back fowler they may have Almora as well. Those players wont get you Sale but all 3 of them are MLB ready in a year where no good FA's are really out there. Someone will be willing to deal pitching in the minors. I personally wouldn't deal Almora myself but obviously you can't always control who someone will want.

 

[brett05]

And in comes exhibit A on why drugs are bad

 

[brett05]

42 year old RA Dickey signs a one year deal with the Braves. The Cubs dynasty is over.

 

[Omeletpants]

For a Sale type pitcher sure but my thing his offseason has been the cubs shouldn't be trying to trade for that type of pitcher. The beauty of their roster is they don't need a #1 starter today. And even with Lackey and Arrieta FA's after next year they don't need a #1 starter next year. What they need is someone who has projection and can be a #3 starter in 2 years. From there the obvious hope would that player develops from a #3, to a #2 and finally a #1 over the next several years while Lester goes from #1ish back to #2 then #3.

And the good thing is it wont be all on whoever they get. Clifton finished A+ this year. You generally need a full year of AA and AAA to be ready for the majors. But he's not *that* far away. De La Cruz and Cease are a year behind him. Between Soler and Candelario the have pieces they can move. And if they are indeed intent on trying to bring back fowler they may have Almora as well. Those players wont get you Sale but all 3 of them are MLB ready in a year where no good FA's are really out there. Someone will be willing to deal pitching in the minors. I personally wouldn't deal Almora myself but obviously you can't always control who someone will want.

This is an example of why you are the best poster on this forum.

 

[DJMoore_is_fat]

This is an example of why you are the best poster on this forum.

High praise from Ommy. All Hail Beckdawg! It is a solid post.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

42 year old RA Dickey signs a one year deal with the Braves. The Cubs dynasty is over.

Ha! I actually think this is a great move by the Braves. by the end of next year they will very close to competitive and you need pitchers to eat innings to get there. I think they're a playoff team by 2018.

 

[brett05]

Ha! I actually think this is a great move by the Braves. by the end of next year they will very close to competitive and you need pitchers to eat innings to get there. I think they're a playoff team by 2018.

I don't think this was a good move at all. He's an innings eater for a team that is going to lose 85-90 games in 2017. Totally not needed and won't be a candidate to be flipped either. I figured he was a good signing for a Dodger/Ranger/Indians/Yankees

 

[TC in Mississippi]

I don't think this was a good move at all. He's an innings eater for a team that is going to lose 85-90 games in 2017. Totally not needed and won't be a candidate to be flipped either. I figured he was a good signing for a Dodger/Ranger/Indians/Yankees

See, I think they're probably about a .500 team next year as long as this isn't their only move. Now the pressure on the pitching staff isn't on young guys like Aaron Blair and Sean Newcomb. They can go Teheran, Collmenter, Dickey and have Blair and Newcomb learn at the bottom of the rotation. They have a legit OF and 1/2 of a very good IF. They need a bridge to Albies at 2B and if they can trade for Brian McCann I'm pretty bullish on their chances.

 

[brett05]

The Braves just signed Colon.

Colon’s ERA last five seasons: 3.57. Ranks 14th among pitchers who have thrown at least 900 innings in that span. Dickey 16th at 3.76.

 

[chibears55]

42 year old RA Dickey signs a one year deal with the Braves. The Cubs dynasty is over.

They just signed Colon today, pending physical

I guess the Braves are turning back the clock in 2017..

Am I missing something here, I thought the Braves were looking towards the future with younger players and new stadium...

Sent from my LG-V495 using Tapatalk

 

[chibears55]

Cubs are looking into RH Greg Holland
Hasn't pitched since 2015.. TJ surgery

Sent from my LG-V495 using Tapatalk

 

[beckdawg]

There's some interesting talk going around about relievers now. I almost posted yesterday a rather lengthy post about this offseason changing how we view bullpens. The gist of it was essentially in the 80's you had relievers who would throw 130+ innings where as this year the most used reliever was like 90 IP. In the 90's and early 2000's that moved to the more one inning guy for the 7th-9th. However, this post season we obviously saw a varied approach to that with guys like Miller.

I think that's honestly a really compelling idea. Stats guys for a long while have suggested the idea of a closer was fairly dumb saying instead you should use your best reliever for your highest leverage situations. The interesting thing was that largely happened in the postseason but that presented another issue that typically those guys had only been used in 1 inning stints. With both Miller and Chapman we now saw managers using them in 2 and sometimes 3 inning stints. I don't think we're going to get to the point where you see someone like Miller every game because obviously after 7 games both him and Chapman were shot. But I do think some of those ideas have merit.

For example, take the case of Carl Edwards. The knock on him all along was his body wouldn't hold up to being a starter and throwing 200 innings. And because of that, his "value" was less because relievers aren't worth a ton at least not until recently. He only threw 61.1 IP this year between AAA and the majors. It's likely reasonable to believe he can throw 100 or possibly more without breaking down. So, why waste some of his value?

The other intriguing aspect of this is teams largely already approach this in the minors. There they piggy back starters in such a way that the "starter" throws 80 pitches or 4-5 innings and they have a secondary starter relieve him and throw another 4-5 innings or 80 pitches with a dedicated closer. In the majors, I think you'd need to get something more like 100 pitches and 5-6 innings but what's to stop you from having relievers who can throw 30-40 pitches regularly every say third day as needed?

I think the main reason things changed was hitters were so good during the steroid era that having specialists to get guys out was needed. But triple slashes have largely fallen back to 80's levels. Think we could be looking at a case of what's old is new again here.

 

[DJMoore_is_fat]

How could Bartolo Colon pass a physical? The guy can hardly breath.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[brett05]

There's some interesting talk going around about relievers now. I almost posted yesterday a rather lengthy post about this offseason changing how we view bullpens. The gist of it was essentially in the 80's you had relievers who would throw 130+ innings where as this year the most used reliever was like 90 IP. In the 90's and early 2000's that moved to the more one inning guy for the 7th-9th. However, this post season we obviously saw a varied approach to that with guys like Miller.

I think that's honestly a really compelling idea. Stats guys for a long while have suggested the idea of a closer was fairly dumb saying instead you should use your best reliever for your highest leverage situations. The interesting thing was that largely happened in the postseason but that presented another issue that typically those guys had only been used in 1 inning stints. With both Miller and Chapman we now saw managers using them in 2 and sometimes 3 inning stints. I don't think we're going to get to the point where you see someone like Miller every game because obviously after 7 games both him and Chapman were shot. But I do think some of those ideas have merit.

For example, take the case of Carl Edwards. The knock on him all along was his body wouldn't hold up to being a starter and throwing 200 innings. And because of that, his "value" was less because relievers aren't worth a ton at least not until recently. He only threw 61.1 IP this year between AAA and the majors. It's likely reasonable to believe he can throw 100 or possibly more without breaking down. So, why waste some of his value?

The other intriguing aspect of this is teams largely already approach this in the minors. There they piggy back starters in such a way that the "starter" throws 80 pitches or 4-5 innings and they have a secondary starter relieve him and throw another 4-5 innings or 80 pitches with a dedicated closer. In the majors, I think you'd need to get something more like 100 pitches and 5-6 innings but what's to stop you from having relievers who can throw 30-40 pitches regularly every say third day as needed?

I think the main reason things changed was hitters were so good during the steroid era that having specialists to get guys out was needed. But triple slashes have largely fallen back to 80's levels. Think we could be looking at a case of what's old is new again here.

1) LaRussa tried the idea of piggybacking. It failed.
2) Frnacona himself said in like Game 3 of the ALCS that this tactic would not be feasible in the regular season.

 

[chibears55]

There's some interesting talk going around about relievers now. I almost posted yesterday a rather lengthy post about this offseason changing how we view bullpens. The gist of it was essentially in the 80's you had relievers who would throw 130+ innings where as this year the most used reliever was like 90 IP. In the 90's and early 2000's that moved to the more one inning guy for the 7th-9th. However, this post season we obviously saw a varied approach to that with guys like Miller.

I think that's honestly a really compelling idea. Stats guys for a long while have suggested the idea of a closer was fairly dumb saying instead you should use your best reliever for your highest leverage situations. The interesting thing was that largely happened in the postseason but that presented another issue that typically those guys had only been used in 1 inning stints. With both Miller and Chapman we now saw managers using them in 2 and sometimes 3 inning stints. I don't think we're going to get to the point where you see someone like Miller every game because obviously after 7 games both him and Chapman were shot. But I do think some of those ideas have merit.

For example, take the case of Carl Edwards. The knock on him all along was his body wouldn't hold up to being a starter and throwing 200 innings. And because of that, his "value" was less because relievers aren't worth a ton at least not until recently. He only threw 61.1 IP this year between AAA and the majors. It's likely reasonable to believe he can throw 100 or possibly more without breaking down. So, why waste some of his value?

The other intriguing aspect of this is teams largely already approach this in the minors. There they piggy back starters in such a way that the "starter" throws 80 pitches or 4-5 innings and they have a secondary starter relieve him and throw another 4-5 innings or 80 pitches with a dedicated closer. In the majors, I think you'd need to get something more like 100 pitches and 5-6 innings but what's to stop you from having relievers who can throw 30-40 pitches regularly every say third day as needed?

I think the main reason things changed was hitters were so good during the steroid era that having specialists to get guys out was needed. But triple slashes have largely fallen back to 80's levels. Think we could be looking at a case of what's old is new again here.

there a big difference in using closers like Miller and Chapman for 2-3 innings during playoff and regular season..
Days off between games and needing them over a course of 162 games instead of possibly 7..



Relievers pitched more innings, not necessarily games because there wasn't as many relievers in pen and starters went longer..

I like the way it was in 80s.. More simpler

2 long relief, 2 middle relief, set up, closer

Top 2 or 3 starters usually went 7 +









Sent from my LG-V495 using Tapatalk

 

[TC in Mississippi]

Cubs are looking into RH Greg Holland
Hasn't pitched since 2015.. TJ surgery

Sent from my LG-V495 using Tapatalk

19 teams are interested in him. If he can come back strong he'd be a nice piece to add. He had 3 great years with the Royals and is only 30. I'd love it if the cubs signed him.

 

[chibears55]

19 teams are interested in him. If he can come back strong he'd be a nice piece to add. He had 3 great years with the Royals and is only 30. I'd love it if the cubs signed him.

Definitely....

Have him pitch in Iowa til he ready

This is an off season for Cubs where they can put more emphasis on bringing in players for 2018 and beyond more so then 2017.

This year if they plan on bringing all 4 SP back..

Their only needs then would be if they don't stay in house..
CF
1 SP
Closer

If they wanna add into the bench and pen

Sent from my LG-V495 using Tapatalk

 

[DJMoore_is_fat]

Holland's slider supposedly looks good but his velocity is down quite a bit. He was a 96mph guy in his prime and now he's at 90-91. So that is pretty significant. Having said that, Bleacher Nation has an article saying he could be back to mid 90's by ST.

Long of the short, he'll probably be a fairly low cost risk. Which seems to be right up Theo's alley.

 

[BaBaBlacksheep]

Holland's slider supposedly looks good but his velocity is down quite a bit. He was a 96mph guy in his prime and now he's at 90-91. So that is pretty significant. Having said that, Bleacher Nation has an article saying he could be back to mid 90's by ST.

Long of the short, he'll probably be a fairly low cost risk. Which seems to be right up Theo's alley.

Heard it was 88-91. That's a big drop off.