Offseason discussion/rumors

[czman]

I mean basically what you're saying here is they haven't done a good enough job securing pitching in their upper minors. Part of the reason they were up shit's creek was they were relying on Cahill, Richard and Warren to play big roles. And part of the reason those guys were needed was they lack pitching with options in the AAA area. I certainly see that they essentially had to rely on those guys because had someone gone down they had little pitching depth in their rotation. So, I'm not saying they were in an "easy" situation. But if they had more depth they likely sustain the loss of Rondon/Strop internally. Maddon also seems to believe he over used Rondon and caused his injury in the first place which also plays in with the depth issues.

I'm not trying to get in a hindsight game here. Certainly they could have done any of 100 different things. What matters to me more though is they are largely still in the same trap. If someone in the rotation were to go down who are we counting on? They haven't really addressed the problem they had last year. Their bullpen is one guy deeper but it's also a guy who missed significant time with an arm injury. And to that effect, the 2018 cubs are likely in an even worse situation because not only are they down a closer but Strop is a FA and you're losing Arrieta and Lackey.

I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt as there is still more offseason but I think these are fair questions to ask. I'd feel a lot better about things if they were able to cheaply deal for someone like Smyly who would be useful out of the pen with another option to start. I think we're taking for granted too much that Montgomery will just slot into the 5 slot fine and even if he does an injury could really set the team back.

The reason they have all of these hitters to trade is they passed on pitchers. They only had one first round pick. They can't take two players with it.

It is good that you will give them the benefit of the doubt. I mean the championship prove that the way they went about this rebuild is correct. They went heavy on hitters early and it was the correct move.

I guess maybe it should be reasonable to think the Cubs should have the best rotation, best lineup, best bench, best pitching prospects, best hitting prospects, best coaches, and best minor league managers. If they don't do that, they are just not living up to the standards.

 

[beckdawg]

Jed said the hitters are set now. They are still looking at BP depth for the most part.

Pen is:

Davis
Rondon
Strop
Edwards

That is 3 guys rotating in the 7-8 with Rondon able to give Davis a day off if the Cubs are on a hot run.

Where I see them looking to upgrade is Zan as a LH LOOGY. They seem fine with Grimm in MR. They were in contact with Wood but he wants to start and 7 teams are courting him as a starter.

So at best they go after a primary lefty in the pen and let Rob be emergency depth in Iowa. Maybe let him start to build endurance early season. I've read his change is his 2nd pitch and his cutter is his 3rd. His main issue is his fastball is pretty strait. Got me thinking that he should use a cutter primarily with a change to counter. So the cutter would go into the fist of a RH batter with his change fading away off the plate. His fastball then would be a pitch used to catch them off guard if they are looking in or away too much.

His curve is not good so I'm not expecting anything there.

All said and done they really should look at a LOOGY more than anything else.

Honestly, they could probably use 2 LHP options. Duensing is far from a sure thing. Leathersich is on the 40 man and has some upside but having 5 options heading into ST for 2 LH slots seems nice. Wouldn't mind seeing them bring Wood back and acquiring Smyly. With Grimm, Strop, Edwards, Rondon and Davis they have 5 RH options. Wood and Smyly would be my bet to make the roster but you could conceivably go with 3 LH options if maddon goes with an 8 man pen. If they only go 7 guys Duensing is only making $2 mil so he's a fairly easy cut.

 

[beckdawg]

The reason they have all of these hitters to trade is they passed on pitchers. They only had one first round pick. They can't take two players with it.

It is good that you will give them the benefit of the doubt. I mean the championship prove that the way they went about this rebuild is correct. They went heavy on hitters early and it was the correct move.

I guess maybe it should be reasonable to think the Cubs should have the best rotation, best lineup, best bench, best pitching prospects, best hitting prospects, best coaches, and best minor league managers. If they don't do that, they are just not living up to the standards.

No reason to be snide about this. You can appreciate what they have done while disagreeing with some aspects of it. I mean what's the point in even being on a message board if you just agree with everything being done? To circle jerk how great they are?

 

[chibears55]

Cubs could grab a lefty reliever in rule 5 draft...

I personally think Montgomery stays in bullpen and used as a 6th starter later in season..

I think they surprise us with a trade for another starter..

And as I said before, I think this upcoming draft and IFA will be all pitching early...




Sent from my LG-V495 using Tapatalk

 

[ijustposthere]

People say this often but I don't particularly believe it. There was maybe 1 game(game 5 of the WS) where I felt Chapman made the difference in winning/losing in the playoffs.

Rest of your post is good, but I couldn't disagree with this more. Rondon and Strop both got hurt down the stretch and neither were the same when they came back. I think both would've blown more games in the playoffs.

 

[DanTown]

5 - 86 for Chapman

 

[Shawon0Meter]

The Yankees have to feel good about having Castro, Warren, Torres, and Chapman

not as good as the Cubs feel about being 2016 World Series champions

but pretty good

 

[chibears55]

Nice as a cubs fan, seeing the top available pitching going to AL teams

Sent from my LG-V495 using Tapatalk

 

[beckdawg]

Why keep bringing up Miller? Cubs would have had to give up much more than Torres to get Miller, i.e. Schwarber. Thank God we didn't do that as I don't think we win the WS without Kyle.

My view is the package for Chapman was roughly the same value to the package for Miller. I suppose you could argue Miller netted more but he's also under control longer and should be more expensive. Either way, they are fairly close in value. My point was more if Chapman is a 1 inning guy then he should have cost something closer to what Melancon got which was a 45 grade prospect and an interesting MLB lefty. The reason Miller was special and should cost what he did was the ability to throw multiple innings. I mean let's call it how it is, the cubs put themselves in a position that they had to have Chapman or some other premium reliever because of injuries and they paid through the nose to get one. Whether or not Chapman was "worth" the package doesn't really matter to me. As I said else where, what I do care about is not repeating the same issue. On the one hand, you can argue they bought now when prices are "cheaper" with Davis. But that's just buying time unless they re-sign him long term because you end up with the same problem after 2017 and you'll have less parts in which to deal from. And obviously that is assuming health on Davis.

I don't think anything I've suggested on this topic is being unreasonable. The cubs front office has repeatedly talked about finding young pitching. This offseason they have talked about finding the next Andrew Miller. Both of those are lofty tasks for sure but thus far have they taken any steps toward that direction other than drafting pitchers that every team does? That is by the cubs own admission their biggest actionable goal. The one move I've seen that fits that criteria is the Montgomery move which in my defense I've spoken glowingly about. All I'm asking for here is showing some real progress toward it. The Chapman/Davis deals while fixing present issue feel like a step backward in reaching those goals because even though a number of the players the cubs dealt didn't have real roles on the cubs going forward, they still present trade value possibly for something else the cubs need.

Is it really that out of line to sit here today wondering what the cubs are going to do going into 2018 where they may have to replace Davis, Strop, Arrieta and Lackey with seemingly 0 obvious in house guys? And it's not going to get any easier. Every year is a year closer to FA on the young core. It's great the cubs won the 2016 WS but time keeps moving. Like I said, there's still time for them to address some of those areas and maybe they are already in talks to do so. But I want to see actual progress not platitudes.

 

[CSF77]

Hitting has a better track record. Pitching has to contend with injury. TJ is common and now TOS is the new flavor that pitchers are dealing with.

It is far better to gamble with the better odds and trade excess for pitching that is major league tested.

Jerry Blevins Is a name for that was bounced around Beck. Like his size. 6'6"

 

[beckdawg]

Rest of your post is good, but I couldn't disagree with this more. Rondon and Strop both got hurt down the stretch and neither were the same when they came back. I think both would've blown more games in the playoffs.

I mean we'll never know either way. And obviously there were other possible trade targets who we also don't know would have pitched better/worse than Chapman. All I'm saying here is I dislike trading useful trade pieces for 1 year(or half year in the case of chapman) patches because you inevitably end up in the same situation the following offseason.

Either way, think this topic has sorta been beaten into the ground so I'll stop discussing it. But as mentioned in an above post, I want to see the cubs start taking action on finding the next andrew miller or the next young starter rather than paying retail. Maybe they can move Candelario to say Atlanta for a young starter with some upside. Maybe someone like say Aaron Blair who doesn't look likely to make their rotation.

 

[beckdawg]

Jerry Blevins Is a name for that was bounced around Beck. Like his size. 6'6"

I'm sure he's a fine LOOGY. I don't really have issue with the Duensing's of the world being signed and I think Blevins fits in that box. I just get frustrated with the talk from the front office being "young starter" or "the next andrew miller" and then seeing them sign marginal guys with no upside outside of a split role. I'm not saying they had to go get Sale/Archer or anything but neither of those guys has real upside. Leathersich last year was someone I could get behind as having some sizzle to him. He's almost surely a LOOGY only but damn if he isn't a potentially dominant one.

In terms of young starters, I'm not saying go for proven guys. I just would like to see them do more of the Arrieta move. Sign/trade for someone who's stock is down for whatever reason and attempt to fix him. The irony of the talk about Miller and Davis is that both were failed starters who eventually found their home as relievers. Davis in particular wasn't even a huge strike out guy until the light finally came on in the bullpen. Pomeranz was had for peanuts before 2016 as an example. Atlanta and Arizona seem like the most obvious prime targets for such moves. Blair and Wisler haven't been as good as prospect status suggested. Like wise Bradley and Shipley haven't been what Arizona hoped. That's why you'll often see me hyping guys like Smyly or Henry Owens who honestly shouldn't really have much hype given their results. I'm hungry for guys who if the light turns on can make an impact.

 

[Omeletpants]

Chapman back to Yankees

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/...-back-new-york-yankees-5-year-86-million-deal

 

[The Bandit]

Can see why the Cubs passed on chap 5 years 86 million

Sent from the Cubs bullpen

 

[DanTown]

My view is the package for Chapman was roughly the same value to the package for Miller. I suppose you could argue Miller netted more but he's also under control longer and should be more expensive. Either way, they are fairly close in value. My point was more if Chapman is a 1 inning guy then he should have cost something closer to what Melancon got which was a 45 grade prospect and an interesting MLB lefty. The reason Miller was special and should cost what he did was the ability to throw multiple innings. I mean let's call it how it is, the cubs put themselves in a position that they had to have Chapman or some other premium reliever because of injuries and they paid through the nose to get one. Whether or not Chapman was "worth" the package doesn't really matter to me. As I said else where, what I do care about is not repeating the same issue. On the one hand, you can argue they bought now when prices are "cheaper" with Davis. But that's just buying time unless they re-sign him long term because you end up with the same problem after 2017 and you'll have less parts in which to deal from. And obviously that is assuming health on Davis.

I don't think anything I've suggested on this topic is being unreasonable. The cubs front office has repeatedly talked about finding young pitching. This offseason they have talked about finding the next Andrew Miller. Both of those are lofty tasks for sure but thus far have they taken any steps toward that direction other than drafting pitchers that every team does? That is by the cubs own admission their biggest actionable goal. The one move I've seen that fits that criteria is the Montgomery move which in my defense I've spoken glowingly about. All I'm asking for here is showing some real progress toward it. The Chapman/Davis deals while fixing present issue feel like a step backward in reaching those goals because even though a number of the players the cubs dealt didn't have real roles on the cubs going forward, they still present trade value possibly for something else the cubs need.

Is it really that out of line to sit here today wondering what the cubs are going to do going into 2018 where they may have to replace Davis, Strop, Arrieta and Lackey with seemingly 0 obvious in house guys? And it's not going to get any easier. Every year is a year closer to FA on the young core. It's great the cubs won the 2016 WS but time keeps moving. Like I said, there's still time for them to address some of those areas and maybe they are already in talks to do so. But I want to see actual progress not platitudes.

What do you think was the key takeaway from the book/movie Moneyball?

 

[beckdawg]

What do you think was the key takeaway from the book/movie Moneyball?

Brad Pitt's fabulous hair?

 

[DanTown]

I mean we'll never know either way. And obviously there were other possible trade targets who we also don't know would have pitched better/worse than Chapman. All I'm saying here is I dislike trading useful trade pieces for 1 year(or half year in the case of chapman) patches because you inevitably end up in the same situation the following offseason.

Either way, think this topic has sorta been beaten into the ground so I'll stop discussing it. But as mentioned in an above post, I want to see the cubs start taking action on finding the next andrew miller or the next young starter rather than paying retail. Maybe they can move Candelario to say Atlanta for a young starter with some upside. Maybe someone like say Aaron Blair who doesn't look likely to make their rotation.

You can't make the argument that unknown guy X would have been a better option before the playoffs than Chapman unless that unknown guy was Andrew Miller. While I understand (though disagree) with the idea that Chapman was somehow bad for the Cubs in the postseason, let's not forget he had some huge outs too. He got two saves in one run games against San Francisco, he got a seven out save in game 5 of the WS while the Cubs were down 3-1. He was a pitch away from getting out of bases loaded/nobody out with no runs allowed.

And the Cubs gave up one really good prospect (Torres) for Chapman; the Indians gave up Frazier (a guy ranked ahead of Torres) AND Justus Sheffield (a fairly projectably lefty). It would have cost another piece from the good prospect list (and I don't think McKinney is that).

 

[DanTown]

Brad Pitt's fabulous hair?

It's a serious question but ok.

 

[SilenceS]

My view is the package for Chapman was roughly the same value to the package for Miller. I suppose you could argue Miller netted more but he's also under control longer and should be more expensive. Either way, they are fairly close in value. My point was more if Chapman is a 1 inning guy then he should have cost something closer to what Melancon got which was a 45 grade prospect and an interesting MLB lefty. The reason Miller was special and should cost what he did was the ability to throw multiple innings. I mean let's call it how it is, the cubs put themselves in a position that they had to have Chapman or some other premium reliever because of injuries and they paid through the nose to get one. Whether or not Chapman was "worth" the package doesn't really matter to me. As I said else where, what I do care about is not repeating the same issue. On the one hand, you can argue they bought now when prices are "cheaper" with Davis. But that's just buying time unless they re-sign him long term because you end up with the same problem after 2017 and you'll have less parts in which to deal from. And obviously that is assuming health on Davis.

I don't think anything I've suggested on this topic is being unreasonable. The cubs front office has repeatedly talked about finding young pitching. This offseason they have talked about finding the next Andrew Miller. Both of those are lofty tasks for sure but thus far have they taken any steps toward that direction other than drafting pitchers that every team does? That is by the cubs own admission their biggest actionable goal. The one move I've seen that fits that criteria is the Montgomery move which in my defense I've spoken glowingly about. All I'm asking for here is showing some real progress toward it. The Chapman/Davis deals while fixing present issue feel like a step backward in reaching those goals because even though a number of the players the cubs dealt didn't have real roles on the cubs going forward, they still present trade value possibly for something else the cubs need.

Is it really that out of line to sit here today wondering what the cubs are going to do going into 2018 where they may have to replace Davis, Strop, Arrieta and Lackey with seemingly 0 obvious in house guys? And it's not going to get any easier. Every year is a year closer to FA on the young core. It's great the cubs won the 2016 WS but time keeps moving. Like I said, there's still time for them to address some of those areas and maybe they are already in talks to do so. But I want to see actual progress not platitudes.

Eh, not really. You may think that way but it was reported that the Yankees valued Clint Frazier way higher than Torres. There scouts were in love with him and considered him a top 5 prospect in their eyes.

 

[beckdawg]

You can't make the argument that unknown guy X would have been a better option before the playoffs than Chapman unless that unknown guy was Andrew Miller. While I understand (though disagree) with the idea that Chapman was somehow bad for the Cubs in the postseason, let's not forget he had some huge outs too. He got two saves in one run games against San Francisco, he got a seven out save in game 5 of the WS while the Cubs were down 3-1. He was a pitch away from getting out of bases loaded/nobody out with no runs allowed.

And the Cubs gave up one really good prospect (Torres) for Chapman; the Indians gave up Frazier (a guy ranked ahead of Torres) AND Justus Sheffield (a fairly projectably lefty). It would have cost another piece from the good prospect list (and I don't think McKinney is that).

I mean look I said I was tired of talking about this so I'll keep this brief. My feeling is the cubs win the same games with someone of Melancon's skill level and maybe someone slightly below him whomever that might be and that player costs less. If you disagree whatever but I think it's a defensible position and I've discussed why at length already.

As for the moneyball comment, I don't really see what you're trying to point out. There's any number of 100 things that are actually interesting about the book. I'm assuming your point was anyone is replaceable but frankly that's not my chief takeaway. My biggest takeaway was finding value in what others don't which is largely what I'm talking about here. Trading for Wade Davis is fine. I don't love the cost as mentioned but that's not really my issue here. My issue is working toward addressing 2018's needs by building team depth. Unless you want to argue Aaron Brooks is going to be the guy, really only progress they made in the previous offseason to now was Montgomery. Thus far we've seen nothing that address depth for 2018 in this offseason. And all I'm really saying here is you have pieces to move. Szczur isn't going to get you a star player but can he get you a flawed player who might have some upside? Sure. Ditto for Candelario. If either of those players can get you someone like Montgomery who might fill a need in the bullpen today while also providing you with options in 2018 great.