Tell Me Where I'm Wrong

[brett05]

...Why don't the Cubs just declare right now that the next 5-7 years they are the most dominate team on the planet?

here's how I would say that.

I'd trade no one. Keep every single guy on the current roster and every single minor leaguer. Bring Grienke and Price in a room and say, look. The time is now. We want a two for one deal. We want you both at $25 million for the next six seasons. You'll be added to Lester and Jake. Jake we are going to sign up after the 2016 season to the same deal of $25 million for the next six. You've seen the offense. We got enough there and they are only going to get better. It's time to make history. And We aren't talking about just winning a World Series. That's the main piece of history, but Zach/David, let's make people stop talking about the Braves of the 90's, the Mets of the 80's and the Orioles of the 70s forever. You can be the four horseman. And with all that'll happen, the endorsement train will go farther than the eye can see. The Team and the Players get it all. They get the wins, they get the money, and they get the history. Fear will strike everyone even before the series starts. It'll start when they see the Cubs on their schedule.

It still keeps the payroll under $170 million and if you back load the deals it could be a little less. Then in five years you'll know if any of the pitchers panned out from the minors. You'll have more minor league hitters to offer as trade pieces to get younger pitchers at that point too.

And that would complete my worst nightmare as a White Sox fan. So why not make the nightmare a reality?

 

[Boobaby1]

...Why don't the Cubs just declare right now that the next 5-7 years they are the most dominate team on the planet?

here's how I would say that.

I'd trade no one. Keep every single guy on the current roster and every single minor leaguer. Bring Grienke and Price in a room and say, look. The time is now. We want a two for one deal. We want you both at $25 million for the next six seasons. You'll be added to Lester and Jake. Jake we are going to sign up after the 2016 season to the same deal of $25 million for the next six. You've seen the offense. We got enough there and they are only going to get better. It's time to make history. And We aren't talking about just winning a World Series. That's the main piece of history, but Zach/David, let's make people stop talking about the Braves of the 90's, the Mets of the 80's and the Orioles of the 70s forever. You can be the four horseman. And with all that'll happen, the endorsement train will go farther than the eye can see. The Team and the Players get it all. They get the wins, they get the money, and they get the history. Fear will strike everyone even before the series starts. It'll start when they see the Cubs on their schedule.

It still keeps the payroll under $170 million and if you back load the deals it could be a little less. Then in five years you'll know if any of the pitchers panned out from the minors. You'll have more minor league hitters to offer as trade pieces to get younger pitchers at that point too.

And that would complete my worst nightmare as a White Sox fan. So why not make the nightmare a reality?

You aren't wrong, and in fact, I'd say you sound like some Cubs fans.

If only it were as easy as what to happened with the Miami Heat with LeBron.

The only flaw I see is that you would have so much wrapped up in the starters (Lester, Greinke, Price, Arrieta extended), that when Arb cases start to increase, you had better have done the job as the window will all but close really quickly, and you had better hope that none of those pitchers go down with a substantial injury.

Also keep in mind that team that normally do this kind of thing, don't win the WS.

It always seems that there is a wrinkle in the system somewhere.

I think what the Cubs are trying to accomplish, is the same mentality of bringing in a free agent pitcher, maybe trading for another young pitcher, and tweaking the line-up to have better hitters throughout with not so many K's to obtain this for many, many years.

At least that is what I heard.

 

[brett05]

The money gets there with the new TV station to cover the ARB cases. Plus you start moving a pitcher or two as they start to slide. Lester would be prime with his relative bargain price at the end of his deal.

 

[CSF77]

Jake wants Grenke.

http://www.csnchicago.com/cubs/after-winning-cy-young-arrieta-says-cubs-would-love-have-greinke

 

[TC in Mississippi]

I think what the Cubs are trying to accomplish, is the same mentality of bringing in a free agent pitcher, maybe trading for another young pitcher, and tweaking the line-up to have better hitters throughout with not so many K's to obtain this for many, many years.

To me this is the key. I don't think you can make a championship team out of what they have and only add pitchers. I think they need to improve contact at two spots in the order plus improvement from guys like Russell and Schwarber both of whom project to have K rates in the low 20% range as opposed to the high 20% range. Bryant is going to be a 25% guys. Ditto on Baez. Plus the loading up on TOR approach doesn't work very often, ask Washington about that despite having a staff that got it done for the most part. I don't think this team needs to try to be the Royals of 2015, they just weren't built that way, but I feel the plan was always to develop some guys to play and some to guys to move for parts with a better fit. I really don't see another way to the dynastic era Brett is suggesting.

 

[brett05]

To me this is the key. I don't think you can make a championship team out of what they have and only add pitchers. I think they need to improve contact at two spots in the order plus improvement from guys like Russell and Schwarber both of whom project to have K rates in the low 20% range as opposed to the high 20% range. Bryant is going to be a 25% guys. Ditto on Baez. Plus the loading up on TOR approach doesn't work very often, ask Washington about that despite having a staff that got it done for the most part. I don't think this team needs to try to be the Royals of 2015, they just weren't built that way, but I feel the plan was always to develop some guys to play and some to guys to move for parts with a better fit. I really don't see another way to the dynastic era Brett is suggesting.

The Nats would be no where close to the staff I am speaking of. Those four on a staff is a championship team with the majority of offenses out there. Even more so with the Cubs offense.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

The Nats would be no where close to the staff I am speaking of. Those four on a staff is a championship team with the majority of offenses out there. Even more so with the Cubs offense.

I agree it would be a better staff but all the pitching in the world doesn't make up for power going cold. You can't strictly on the long ball, you of all people should know that with some of those White Sox teams. A team built to win by the long ball is fine, a team built to win almost solely with the long ball is not. I don't think you continue to win a lot of games, not matter how much pitching you have, when the only guy your lineup with a K rate under 20% is Anthony Rizzo at 16%-18%. In contrast the highest K rate in the Royals daily lineup was 16.4%.

 

[brett05]

I agree it would be a better staff but all the pitching in the world doesn't make up for power going cold. You can't strictly on the long ball, you of all people should know that with some of those White Sox teams. A team built to win by the long ball is fine, a team built to win almost solely with the long ball is not. I don't think you continue to win a lot of games, not matter how much pitching you have, when the only guy your lineup with a K rate under 20% is Anthony Rizzo at 16%-18%. In contrast the highest K rate in the Royals daily lineup was 16.4%.

But the Cubs are far from Adam Dunn/Adam Laroche in the lineup.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

But the Cubs are far from Adam Dunn/Adam Laroche in the lineup.

No, I get that and the high OBP of guys like Schwarber, Bryant and Rizzo does mitigate the K rates a bit. I just wonder how many of those guys a lineup can sustain. I also question why Greinke and Price would leave $50 million each on the table. I think money usually trumps winning and they'll both likely end up with potential winners anyway. Not like they're going to sign with the Phillies.

 

[DanTown]

I think the problem with this strategy is it relies on Addison Russell or someone else on the team being ready to be a lead-off hitter. I'd of course not say no to both guys if they took less but I don't see them wanting to do it (even though it pushes both guys over 200 million in life-time earnings). But if you got both, dumped Montero/Hammel in trades to save money, and then went after say Heyward to play CF/leadoff, you'd be around 175 million but you'd have maybe the best team on paper in the past 20 years

Heyward - CF
Soler - RF
Rizzo - 1B
Bryant - 3B
Schwarber - C
Castro - 2B
Coghlan - LF
P
Russell

Bench: Ross, two of McKinney/Szcur/Alcantra, Baez, Villaneuva

Arrieta, Price, Grienke, Lester, Hendricks
Rondon, Strop, Cook, Cahill, Grimm, Rosscup, Richard

2017
Heyward - RF
Soler - LF
Rizzo - 1B
Bryant - 3B
Schwarber - C
Castro - 2B
Russell - SS
P
Almora - CF

Bench: Baez, Contreras, McKinney, Alcantra/Szcur

Both of those teams are plenty good enough to win.

By the way, if you get two legit SP, the need to keep Travis Wood at around 6.5 million isn't necessary and you can probably save 5-6 million on a Hammel trade. If you moved Montero and saved 10 million, that's 20 million to spend somewhere and you can replace Wood in the bullpen with a young arm (Edwards? Cook?) and you can replace Montero at C with a fairly large platoon of Schwarber/Ross (Schwarber will start a lot but Ross will close a lot).

Someone will say they won't go that high and I'd agree UNLESS it was getting Heyward, Price, and Grienke. Ricketts is spend thrifty since he isn't cash rich but even he would understand the need to make those moves.

 

[brett05]

No, I get that and the high OBP of guys like Schwarber, Bryant and Rizzo does mitigate the K rates a bit. I just wonder how many of those guys a lineup can sustain. I also question why Greinke and Price would leave $50 million each on the table. I think money usually trumps winning and they'll both likely end up with potential winners anyway. Not like they're going to sign with the Phillies.

You could even go 30 million per for 6 for both. I dunno, maybe I read too much into my nightmares.

 

[brett05]

I think the problem with this strategy is it relies on Addison Russell or someone else on the team being ready to be a lead-off hitter.

from post season interviews with Joe Maddon, I believe that is exactly his plan. Russell was in training for the job per Joe by batting ninth.

Really with the pitching it wouldn't matter.

Plus there is no indication that Heyward will play CF. In fact he has said the opposite. Of course money makes our convictions weaker so if you think Heyward is getting $20-25 million to not play CF, change that to wht 22-27 million?

 

[DanTown]

from post season interviews with Joe Maddon, I believe that is exactly his plan. Russell was in training for the job per Joe by batting ninth.

Really with the pitching it wouldn't matter.

Plus there is no indication that Heyward will play CF. In fact he has said the opposite. Of course money makes our convictions weaker so if you think Heyward is getting $20-25 million to not play CF, change that to wht 22-27 million?

If the Cubs think that Russell is ready to lead-off then that changes things. If that's the case, I'd go Grienke/Price and then give the CF/9 hole job to either Sczcur/Alcantra/Almora after spring training.

 

[SilenceS]

Castro would be a better leadoff hitter than Russell right now. They equally don't walk much and Russell has a lot to work on with the K's. He didn't exactly get better as the year went on. They have about the same power and neither of them are going to swipe 20 plus bags.

If you are saying we stay in house, then I don't see how Maddon can put Russell in the leadoff spot to start the year. He would have to show adjustments at the big league level and spring training is not enough of an indicator to me.

 

[CSF77]

Too much made out of it. Guy leads off 1 time per game. It comes down to giving 1 guy the most AB's per season. That is why you look at OBA. That is the biggest factor. Most ab's most outs etc. so you try to get the highest OBA there

 

[SilenceS]

Too much made out of it. Guy leads off 1 time per game. It comes down to giving 1 guy the most AB's per season. That is why you look at OBA. That is the biggest factor. Most ab's most outs etc. so you try to get the highest OBA there

I would agree for the most part, but Joe likes to run. I don't see a guy he can out in the spot that can run. Castro and Russell are terrible at swiping bags. Bryant would be an ideal guy, but you wouldn't want to kill his RBI potential. Its interesting. Joe isn't very conventional so who knows what he is thinking. Also, I know for a fact the Cubs use computerized programs for lineups. I believe Maddon said he has his own theorem when making the lineup that is put in place. So, who knows. It was also reported that when Renteria was here that the FO did the lineup by computer and he didn't have much say.

 

[DanTown]

Too much made out of it. Guy leads off 1 time per game. It comes down to giving 1 guy the most AB's per season. That is why you look at OBA. That is the biggest factor. Most ab's most outs etc. so you try to get the highest OBA there

Not sure you can just say stick a high OBP guy there because if you move Rizzo/Schwarber there for example, they obviously will bat less times with guys on base.

Castro would be a better leadoff hitter than Russell right now. They equally don't walk much and Russell has a lot to work on with the K's. He didn't exactly get better as the year went on. They have about the same power and neither of them are going to swipe 20 plus bags.

If you are saying we stay in house, then I don't see how Maddon can put Russell in the leadoff spot to start the year. He would have to show adjustments at the big league level and spring training is not enough of an indicator to me.

This isn't really true. Russell had double the walks Castro did (42/21) in 55 less PA. Also, Russell's problem was an astronomical SO rate for a guy who never struggled with K's in any stop. I think Russell could be a guy who has a OBP around .350 as soon as next year because if he cuts his SO rate down to 20% then he's right there.

 

[SilenceS]

Not sure you can just say stick a high OBP guy there because if you move Rizzo/Schwarber there for example, they obviously will bat less times with guys on base.



This isn't really true. Russell had double the walks Castro did (42/21) in 55 less PA. Also, Russell's problem was an astronomical SO rate for a guy who never struggled with K's in any stop. I think Russell could be a guy who has a OBP around .350 as soon as next year because if he cuts his SO rate down to 20% then he's right there.

You expect him to cut his K rate down 8.5% in an off season at 22? Russell doesn't have a track record of being a strong walker either above single A. This is the majors. The minors numbers can almost be thrown out the window. Russell also didn't get better as the year wore on with K's. He stayed pretty constant. Also, .350 OBP if he cuts down the K's? No, he had a 8% walk rate this year. Those K's would have to turn into hits which wasn't his strong suit either. Russell may be a leadoff hitter one day, but he is not there. Castro K rate is almost half of Russells. He doesn't walk as much, but yet again, neither of them walk much. Castro 3.6 walk rate last year will rise. He has stayed at 5% for most of his career. I am not advocating for Castro to lead off because I hope we add someone to do that. But, if we are staying in house, then Russell is in no way near ready for the spot.

 

[DJMoore_is_fat]

I've heard the payroll is a projected $130M, with $100M already accounted for. That leaves $30M in payroll flexibility, total. So acquiring both guys for $25M per year each -- it's beyond our budget.

I don't see us landing one of the truly big fish -- in fact, I'd be surprised if we even landed Zimmerman. I'm thinking it will be Shark for $75-80M, a SP acquired through trade, and a short-term CF.

Unless Theo gets creative, as he mentioned -- in which we back-load a big contract and salary dump either Hammel or Castro.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

I've heard the payroll is a projected $130M, with $100M already accounted for. That leaves $30M in payroll flexibility, total. So acquiring both guys for $25M per year each -- it's beyond our budget.

I don't see us landing one of the truly big fish -- in fact, I'd be surprised if we even landed Zimmerman. I'm thinking it will be Shark for $75-80M, a SP acquired through trade, and a short-term CF.

Unless Theo gets creative, as he mentioned -- in which we back-load a big contract and salary dump either Hammel or Castro.

Every single source I've heard except for Gordon Wittenmyer thinks $150 mil is about right give or take. I don't think they'll exceed that though and that number has to include some bench guys and pen arms.