You're the GM (Game)

[beckdawg]

Until he solves the fact that he doesn't change speeds a ton (his sinker/fastball are almost identical speeds) and that he doesn't change eye level means he's not going to be a guy who gets through the third time of the lineup. So while his "numbers" are great, that has two costs on the team

1. No matter how well/poorly he pitches, the bullpen is going to pitch 3-4 innings every game
2. He's a guy who's going to struggle against the elite teams in this league who have depth to their lineups

I have no problem saying Hendricks should be in the rotation but all this talk about how good he is because of his FIP or other stats does not include the whole picture of how Joe manages him. It's not comparable to say Hendricks and Zimmerman are close due to numbers.

I mean this conversation basically comes down to the fact you have very little faith in him improving apparently. Obviously you're welcome to your opinion but to say he can't go 6-7 inning regularly in his prime to me is ridiculous. Doug Fister is a very similar type pitcher to Hendricks. At age 26, he threw 171.0 IP with a 4.89 k/9 and a 1.68 bb/9 and had a 4.11/3.65 ERA/FIP. The following year at 27 he threw 216.1 with a 6.07 k/9 and a 1.54 bb/9 as well as 2.83/3.02 ERA/FIP. And that season wasn't a fluke. the following 2 years he was over 6 innings per start and was essentially just as good. Hendricks at a year younger put up a better k/9 than Fister did which indicates he is fooling more batters. Now I can't say with certainty that Hendricks will have Fister's career but that's not even really what I'm trying to do. The point is if Fister can do it then it's entirely plausible Hendricks can as well because Fister doesn't have dominating stuff.

As for the second point, I think that's an entirely meaningless stat. For one, it's a small sample size from essentially a rookie. I'm sure if you look at Bryant's numbers vs .500 or better teams they are likely substantially down as well. That's what good teams do. Now maybe if you were arguing over whether or not Hendricks was a TOR stater then sure talking about dominating great teams might be worth while. But that's not even what anyone is talking about. If I recall correctly, you said Hendricks had a 4.50ish ERA vs .500+ teams. The league average for starters was 4.10 overall. I'm guessing most #3 quality starters are in the 4.50-5 range vs .500+ teams. That's just the lack of depth that the major leagues has in starters.

Where I get frustrated with people talking about Hendricks is the fact he was slightly better than league average in ERA as well as being well above league average in most other numbers as a 25 year old pitcher. He obviously has some things to work on like any 25 year old does. But, there were 78 pitchers this year who had qualified innings and he was middle of the pack in that. This belief that there's 90-100 pitchers better than Hendricks to me is delusional. There weren't even 80 pitchers who were able to throw more than 160 innings. In 2014, only 88 pitchers had 160+ IP. In 2013, only 79 pitchers had 160+ IP. If you get nothing more than what he did in 2015 out of him the next 4 years, just going 170+ innings makes him exceedingly valuable.

 

[brett05]

Fernandez and Wainright are two pitchers you take over Hendricks, right? They both combined didn't cross 75 innings combined.

 

[beckdawg]

Fernandez and Wainright are two pitchers you take over Hendricks, right? They both combined didn't cross 75 innings combined.

Ok great there's 2 pitchers. You want to throw Zach Wheeler in there too? That's 3. But Hendricks was still middle of the pack of that 78 who did qualify so unless you're finding another 60-70 guys my point still stands.

Edit: Just to clarify here, there were a grand total of 186 starters who had more than 50 IP and let me tell you the guys in the 50-75 IP range aren't exactly pretty. 57 of that 186 had an ERA over 4.50. 94 of that 186 had an ERA over 4 and that's before you even factor in that actually being able to throw 160 innings in of itself is a big deal. For example, lots of people like CJ Edwards stuff but people question if his body will break down.

 

[Postman]

First let me admit to being a Mets fan. I haven't know that much about the Cubs, but I watched every minute of our four games and was impressed by your team and your fans.

Now these four games may not be representative, but if they are, you do have to trade Schwarber to the American League. This will be the best thing you can do for your team and especially the best thing you can do for the player. Schwarber has to hurt inside every time he lets a catchable ball go for a double. But there's nothing he can do - fielding is not in his skillset. But he is a great hitter. So, if you can package him and a so so pitcher for a top young pitcher from the AL, you've helped both him and your club.

 

[DanTown]

Having problems finding where I read this but apparently Maddon had such a short leash on Hendricks because hitters BA were climbing at an alarming rate that matched his times through the order....topping off at .324 the third time through. Was he just tiring early or was it something else? Other than changing your game plan mid-stream, I'm not sure how you would fix this.

Slash line against Kyle Hendricks third time through
.329/.374/.520

A.j. Pollock slash line
.315/.367/.498

 

[FirstTimer]

I like that lineup/batting order a lot.

LOL @ Castro leading off.

 

[DanTown]

I mean this conversation basically comes down to the fact you have very little faith in him improving apparently. Obviously you're welcome to your opinion but to say he can't go 6-7 inning regularly in his prime to me is ridiculous. Doug Fister is a very similar type pitcher to Hendricks. At age 26, he threw 171.0 IP with a 4.89 k/9 and a 1.68 bb/9 and had a 4.11/3.65 ERA/FIP. The following year at 27 he threw 216.1 with a 6.07 k/9 and a 1.54 bb/9 as well as 2.83/3.02 ERA/FIP. And that season wasn't a fluke. the following 2 years he was over 6 innings per start and was essentially just as good. Hendricks at a year younger put up a better k/9 than Fister did which indicates he is fooling more batters. Now I can't say with certainty that Hendricks will have Fister's career but that's not even really what I'm trying to do. The point is if Fister can do it then it's entirely plausible Hendricks can as well because Fister doesn't have dominating stuff.

Again, the problem with Hendricks isn't that he has bad stuff; the problem is that he lacks depth in his arsenal to get guys out deep in games. Fister is like most quality pitchers and while his numbers skew to being easier to hit the third time through (.252/.292/.373 vs .276/.318/.397), it doesn't turn into some world beating offensive slug fest.

As for the second point, I think that's an entirely meaningless stat. For one, it's a small sample size from essentially a rookie. I'm sure if you look at Bryant's numbers vs .500 or better teams they are likely substantially down as well. That's what good teams do. Now maybe if you were arguing over whether or not Hendricks was a TOR stater then sure talking about dominating great teams might be worth while. But that's not even what anyone is talking about. If I recall correctly, you said Hendricks had a 4.50ish ERA vs .500+ teams. The league average for starters was 4.10 overall. I'm guessing most #3 quality starters are in the 4.50-5 range vs .500+ teams. That's just the lack of depth that the major leagues has in starters.

Where I get frustrated with people talking about Hendricks is the fact he was slightly better than league average in ERA as well as being well above league average in most other numbers as a 25 year old pitcher. He obviously has some things to work on like any 25 year old does. But, there were 78 pitchers this year who had qualified innings and he was middle of the pack in that. This belief that there's 90-100 pitchers better than Hendricks to me is delusional. There weren't even 80 pitchers who were able to throw more than 160 innings. In 2014, only 88 pitchers had 160+ IP. In 2013, only 79 pitchers had 160+ IP. If you get nothing more than what he did in 2015 out of him the next 4 years, just going 170+ innings makes him exceedingly valuable.

Guys who are 25-26 don't all of the sudden develop life on his fastball. And let's remember what kind of prospect Hendricks is: he's a mid round pick out of JC who was a dump guy in the Ryan Dempster trade who moved up the system because he can pitch but doesn't have great stuff. Now he's in the majors and low and behold, he has decent stuff but it's not that variable for a SP. How long you want to wait for Hendricks to develop skills he hasn't shown in five+ years of professional baseball?

Also, fun you point out his splits and then don't talk about his third time through issues. I don't care if he's Cy Young, if he's not getting anyone out the third time through, he's only going to give you five or six innings at the max. And if that's as much as he's giving you, he's not going to be a top of the rotation guy.

 

[beckdawg]

Also, fun you point out his splits and then don't talk about his third time through issues.

It's not that I'm ignoring that. It's that I'm not certain it is going to hold up long term as a problem. Obviously it's an issue among others I've mentioned. But can you say with certainty that it isn't just a case of him wearing down in the later innings of his starts? I look at it like this, 1) he's going to get more used to big innings as he grows older. As a professional, he's never thrown more than 180 innings. He threw basically that last year with about 100 in AAA and 80 in the majors and matched that this year. Frankly, even if there were no issues with regard to 3rd time through the line up I doubt you want him throwing over 200 innings this year anyways as jumps like that tend to lead to arm problems. So, unless he was breezing through a game anyways he's really never had to pitch that deep and likely hasn't had a ton of experience with it in the minors and teams in general are super cautious with pitching in the minors.

2) There's an art to being effective with your pitches. If you look at what Lackey did to the cubs in game 1 of the NLDS, that's clearly a case of a vet knowing how to pitch effectively. Also, in that vein of thought you have to know what you can get away with as you start to tire. Someone who can throw 97 might not have as big of issues but Hendricks can't do that. My argument is that isn't something you just come into the league at 25 knowing. Hendricks has to learn what he can do that is effective in those situations. Maybe you are right and he doesn't have it and wont ever have it. But I don't think you can sit here today and say you know that. He's obviously good the first 2 times through the line up. So, my view is more that he will in time become more effective later rather than it being a case where he can't get better.

Also, I don't think you can say he isn't going to learn more skills after 5 years as a professional. In AA/AAA there is a lot of stuff you can get away with and don't necessarily need to learn anything new. If something is effective why change it? Hendricks had a 1.85 ERA in AA and a mid 3's ERA in AAA in a hitters league(PCL) so clearly what he was doing there was working. The majors are different. Often times guys learn a new way to grip a pitch and it totally changes what they are. Just as an example, Arrieta finally figured out with the cubs a way of throwing more upright and that totally changed him as a pitcher. That was at 27 after multiple years in the majors. Hendricks obviously doesn't have anywhere near the stuff Arrieta does. But my point is it's not as obvious as a player coming to the majors with what they are. I recently read a book about the pirates run to the playoffs and they talked about their pitching coach essentially eliminating 4 seam fastballs in favor of 2 seamer. With one pitcher(think it was Charlie Morton but might be wrong on this) it totally revitalized his career which was floundering. A lot of that ends up being trial and error a the major league level because few hitters were advanced enough in the minors to warrant that development.

 

[dabears253313]

LOL @ Castro leading off.

You should let Hammer know how you feel about it.

Anyway, that roster makes it possible for them to keep all of their young guys, which I like. Can you tell everyone who the lead off hitter should be with that lineup???????????? Your preference??????

 

[DanTown]

It's not that I'm ignoring that. It's that I'm not certain it is going to hold up long term as a problem. Obviously it's an issue among others I've mentioned. But can you say with certainty that it isn't just a case of him wearing down in the later innings of his starts? I look at it like this, 1) he's going to get more used to big innings as he grows older. As a professional, he's never thrown more than 180 innings. He threw basically that last year with about 100 in AAA and 80 in the majors and matched that this year. Frankly, even if there were no issues with regard to 3rd time through the line up I doubt you want him throwing over 200 innings this year anyways as jumps like that tend to lead to arm problems. So, unless he was breezing through a game anyways he's really never had to pitch that deep and likely hasn't had a ton of experience with it in the minors and teams in general are super cautious with pitching in the minors.

2) There's an art to being effective with your pitches. If you look at what Lackey did to the cubs in game 1 of the NLDS, that's clearly a case of a vet knowing how to pitch effectively. Also, in that vein of thought you have to know what you can get away with as you start to tire. Someone who can throw 97 might not have as big of issues but Hendricks can't do that. My argument is that isn't something you just come into the league at 25 knowing. Hendricks has to learn what he can do that is effective in those situations. Maybe you are right and he doesn't have it and wont ever have it. But I don't think you can sit here today and say you know that. He's obviously good the first 2 times through the line up. So, my view is more that he will in time become more effective later rather than it being a case where he can't get better.

Also, I don't think you can say he isn't going to learn more skills after 5 years as a professional. In AA/AAA there is a lot of stuff you can get away with and don't necessarily need to learn anything new. If something is effective why change it? Hendricks had a 1.85 ERA in AA and a mid 3's ERA in AAA in a hitters league(PCL) so clearly what he was doing there was working. The majors are different. Often times guys learn a new way to grip a pitch and it totally changes what they are. Just as an example, Arrieta finally figured out with the cubs a way of throwing more upright and that totally changed him as a pitcher. That was at 27 after multiple years in the majors. Hendricks obviously doesn't have anywhere near the stuff Arrieta does. But my point is it's not as obvious as a player coming to the majors with what they are. I recently read a book about the pirates run to the playoffs and they talked about their pitching coach essentially eliminating 4 seam fastballs in favor of 2 seamer. With one pitcher(think it was Charlie Morton but might be wrong on this) it totally revitalized his career which was floundering. A lot of that ends up being trial and error a the major league level because few hitters were advanced enough in the minors to warrant that development.

Again, the problem with Hendricks isn't his stuff because he clearly gets guys out the first two times; the problem Kyle has is a lack of diversity in his stuff. And the "he's getting tired" doesn't make sense since he's neither throwing a lot of pitches nor is he throwing a lot of innings. Sometimes the most logical answer is the right one and Kyle Hendricks is EXACTLY what he was scouted as: a back end rotation arm who can get through a lineup a few times but will struggle beyond that because his pitches are very similar and he doesn't really throw a pitch in the strikezone that can miss bats. Why are you trying to reinvent the wheel with him? Just accept who he is and what he does.

 

[Hammer]

That batting order isn't set in stone, for example, with another year of experience, maybe Soler and/or Russell can get to .300 BA and .400 OBP and become potential leadoff type players, who knows.

The most important thing with my Offseason play is that you keep the young core together (Rizzo, Castro, Soler, Bryant, Baez, Schwarber, Russell), let them grow and develop into a batting juggernaut.

And considering SP, yes we need another quality pitcher, but all this talk about adding 2 TOR pitchers just seems like a knee jerk reaction after painful loss to a Mets team.


Bottom line is, this Cubs team needs to get another TOR pitcher via. FA in the Offseason and that's it (as I already said, be that Price, Greinke, Cueto or Zimmerman, whomever brass deems the best option for the team), other moves should be made couple of months into the next season, after they see and evaluate what they have in guys like Turner, Johnson and Williams (maybe even Underwood).

And if there's still a need for a quality pitcher by June, they can always use the stacked farm and go after 2016 version of Price/Cueto/Hamels for the Playoffs run.

 

[beckdawg]

Again, the problem with Hendricks isn't his stuff because he clearly gets guys out the first two times; the problem Kyle has is a lack of diversity in his stuff. And the "he's getting tired" doesn't make sense since he's neither throwing a lot of pitches nor is he throwing a lot of innings. Sometimes the most logical answer is the right one and Kyle Hendricks is EXACTLY what he was scouted as: a back end rotation arm who can get through a lineup a few times but will struggle beyond that because his pitches are very similar and he doesn't really throw a pitch in the strikezone that can miss bats. Why are you trying to reinvent the wheel with him? Just accept who he is and what he does.

Because I'm old enough to have seen dozens if not 100's of players who are far better than the "scouting report." Why are you as a cubs fan so unwilling to believe Hendricks can improve off what by any definition was a strong season at 25? No one here is calling Hendricks the next Maddux(least not in this topic anyways). He's a solid middle of the rotation starter and yet many people act like he's garbage that shouldn't be starting. I said this before some where else but I don't really think you and I are that far off in opinion but you seem to think we are. As I recall, you said he's a fine 4th starter. My view is there isn't a huge degree of difference between #3/4 starters because after the first 50 or so pitchers the quality falls off drastically.

I'll say this again, who's an average #3? Hendricks is younger and pitched similarly numerically to James Shields. He pitched similarly to Mike Leake. He pitched similarly to Ubaldo Jimenez. He pitched better than Andrew Cashner. Those are #3 starters in the present day MLB. Was he managed? Maybe but Cashner only threw 184.2 innings in 31 starts, Shields threw 202.1 innings in 33 starts, Jimenez threw 184 innings in 32 starts and Leake threw 192.0 in 30 starts. Were those players any less "managed" than Hendricks who threw 180 innings in 32 starts? Over the course of a season you're talking about basically the difference of these guys going 2 more outs max per start. It's not like he's going 4 innings nightly.

If the cubs sign/trade for someone who's better than Hendricks and push him back to the #4 starter great. That makes them a better team. I'm just sick of the talk some have where you have to get rid of him from the rotation. Let's be real here, the cubs won 97 games with him more or less being their #3 starter and he was 8-7. So it's not like he was some giant liability to the team. And having conversed with you enough I realize you're not saying that but some people are. Ultimately that's where my problem is. As I said above, I obviously have a higher opinion of Hendricks than you do but I don't really think that it is so different that it's worth a huge debate even though it has been one for whatever reason.

 

[DanTown]

If the cubs sign/trade for someone who's better than Hendricks and push him back to the #4 starter great. That makes them a better team. I'm just sick of the talk some have where you have to get rid of him from the rotation. Let's be real here, the cubs won 97 games with him more or less being their #3 starter and he was 8-7. So it's not like he was some giant liability to the team. And having conversed with you enough I realize you're not saying that but some people are. Ultimately that's where my problem is. As I said above, I obviously have a higher opinion of Hendricks than you do but I don't really think that it is so different that it's worth a huge debate even though it has been one for whatever reason.

The reason for the debate is that you're overstating how good Hendricks is because of stats, not stuff. While you want to say Hendricks is a good third SP solely because of his FIP/ERA. Hendricks doesn't pitch deep into games often and he doesn't pitch well against elite teams. That's why this debate ranges on.

And while you're talking about third best FIP on teams, there are more stats to measure pitchers than by FIP. If Hendricks was such a good pitcher, why is he tied for 46th with 11 quality starts and of starters with at least 20 starts why did he finish 56th out of 62 among NL pitchers in quality start percentages?

Again, you're saying he's going to improve because of magical improvement that he hasn't done or shown after five+ years in professional baseball. I just watched him make 35 starts with incredibly short leashes by Maddon which kept his stats down. There is nothing in his pitching that says he'll get better, you're just saying it will happen. While there are exceptions, there rarely are.

And if Hendricks was on any of the elite teams, he wouldn't be a third starter. Sure Kyle Hendricks can be a third starter on a baseball team, it's just unlikely that said team will be elite more so because it means it has two starters LESS than Kyle Hendricks on the staff.

 

[chibears55]

Kyle Hendricks will probably be the 5th starter

They will most likely sign a TOR like Price and trade for a starter to fill in the 4th slot...

Hendricks being just 25 and with 5 yrs of team control left would be the perfect 5th starter for now and depending on how he progress or regress he could be the expendable one if someone in their system is ready to push him out...

Also just giving my opinion..
Notice a few mention Schwarber going back to Catcher, i know Epstein mentioned they will have Schwarber continue to work as Catcher a bit over the off season but i think that more to keep him sharp as a 3rd catcher for now more then as being a starter or back up..
That is his 2nd position like some of the other young players have multiple positions that maddon likes to have on roster..

 

[beckdawg]

The reason for the debate is that you're overstating how good Hendricks is because of stats, not stuff. While you want to say Hendricks is a good third SP solely because of his FIP/ERA. Hendricks doesn't pitch deep into games often and he doesn't pitch well against elite teams. That's why this debate ranges on.

You know who doesn't pitch deep into games and who doesn't pitch well against elite teams? The vast majority of #3-5 starter in the major leagues. I mean I literally just showed three more talented pitchers with fairly similar innings/start.

And while you're talking about third best FIP on teams, there are more stats to measure pitchers than by FIP. If Hendricks was such a good pitcher, why is he tied for 46th with 11 quality starts and of starters with at least 20 starts why did he finish 56th out of 62 among NL pitchers in quality start percentages?

Hardly a great measure of his value. This stat is entirely reliant on going 6 innings which to an extent Hendricks doesn't control. While it's certainly fair to question why he isn't going longer in starts, you can't assume that because he didn't pitch 6 innings that failing to do so means he would have pitched poorly if Maddon left him in longer. At the end of the day, you can only go by what he did while in the game. And don't get me wrong, you've raised some valid concerns about the third time through the line up. But while he was in the game he pitched well. As I have mentioned, I think it's premature to assume he will never get better the third time through a line up. He might never be great in that regard but literally any improvement there makes him better. You may question where that will come from. I think it's experience. Something as simple as sequencing your pitches differently can throw a hitter off.

And if Hendricks was on any of the elite teams, he wouldn't be a third starter. Sure Kyle Hendricks can be a third starter on a baseball team, it's just unlikely that said team will be elite more so because it means it has two starters LESS than Kyle Hendricks on the staff.

Again, that's not really a knock on Hendricks. It's more a statement on quality starters in the league.

I mean at this point I'm not really sure what more there is to say here. You've more or less agreed with me without going so far as to say it. So, I'm not entirely sure why you're still pushing this. We both agree that Hendricks can be a #3 starter on some MLB teams. We both agree that it would be great if the cubs had someone to slot in front of him. We agree less on his ability to improve. I don't think he's going to suddenly be Cliff Lee but what I will say is any experience is going to help a player. He averaged 5.2 IP per start on the season. If he is literally any better the third time through the line up next year you probably squeak out another out or two. Additionally, if a year of experience helps him any vs .500 teams his ERA also drops from an already decent 3.95.

Put another way, would it be that shocking to see him throw 200 IP over 32 starts with a 8 k/9, 2 bb/9 and 3.50 ERA next year? Because that's essentially what Johnny Cueto and Jordan Zimmermann did. If you want to suggest that's "best case" then fine but it's not like it's that far out of the realm of possibility. You're essentially talking about 9 runs over a season being the difference between a 3.50 ERA and a 3.95 and you can suggest he was a little unlucky. His strand rate was 69.9% which is about 3% lower than average and his HR/FB was about 1% over average both of which are stats that tend to regress toward the mean. Either way, literally any improvement at this point is gravy.

 

[CSF77]

It depends on if Fowler will leave. I believe he turns down the 1 year offer and moves on with his value up this off season. He is the top CF on the market. I doubt the Cubs will match a realistic offer that he has earned. Dexter would have to take less to stay IMO. 2 years at most.

So if he bounces which I see as a 80% likelihood, that becomes a major need. Now if they feel Almora is a few months away then I believe they bandaid it. If he is a full year out then they have to address it with a payroll commitment. I would love to say that Alcantara progressed enough last year to take over but he did not. Szczur would be a good RH option out there in a platoon but not as a everyday option. Who knows with regular play he may take the job outright. He has solid lead off skills also.

Now on a starter. I have the feeling...call it a gut feel that they will go after Price with a trader as a back up option. If they deal out anyone it will be Baez as his value became solid again. If they do center a deal around Baez it should be of Harvey quality that they are shooting for.

Now on a 2nd arm. Surethat would be nice but that depends on how much payroll they have to commit to a starter and extending Arrieta. If they are able to deal for Harvey and he gets 4-5 in Arb1 and Arrieta gets a deal with 10 mil as next years commitment then yes they would be able to rework the back end of the rotation.

 

[beckdawg]

So if he bounces which I see as a 80% likelihood, that becomes a major need. Now if they feel Almora is a few months away then I believe they bandaid it. If he is a full year out then they have to address it with a payroll commitment. I would love to say that Alcantara progressed enough last year to take over but he did not. Szczur would be a good RH option out there in a platoon but not as a everyday option. Who knows with regular play he may take the job outright. He has solid lead off skills also.

I don't think you can even start with that sort of thinking on Almora. The problem is you really can't trust him to hit and that's compounded by the fact the player he would be replacing is your lead off hitter. If this were a case of something like Schwarber where his defense was iffy but you knew he could hit in CF I can definitely see that approach which i mean they did with Schwarber and to a lessor extent Bryant. Almora really hasn't even had a great full year. His best stint was a .329/.376/.466 in A ball but that was only 272 PAs and he struggled pretty hard in A+ and AA until the 2nd half of last year. I think minimum you're looking at a full year in the minors unless you're calling him up via injury or to be a bench player late in the year. And even when he is up, you're talking about hopefully an average hitter with great defense where as Fowler this year was passable defense and a pretty good hitter. There is some talk that the Red Sox are willing to move prospects and Jackie Bradley Jr. would be a sort of interesting non-fowler move. However, that comes with a lot of complications because are you really ready to just slot him in to your lead off or 9 hitter if you swap him and Russell?

To me the play is to re-sign fowler. He has the fewest risks and for a team with hopefully WS aspirations I don't think getting cute makes sense unless Fowler manage to get something way over the top contract wise. That may cost you the 2nd pitcher people want but you can always add more pitching later. And honestly, I think the cubs staff was better than people think. Apparently so does Theo considering he mentioned specific stats such as ERA and WAR in his presser.

 

[beckdawg]

I find it interesting that Gordon Wittenmyer is really pushing this Teheran talk. He's the name that linked the cubs with Soler to the braves at the deadline and he had an article up today mentioning it. With that said he's not the only one who's talked about Teheran possibly being available. Jeff Passan said at the deadline the braves were listening on him.

Hypothetically, if you were to trade Soler for Teheran straight up the cubs would actually be saving about $300k in 2016 though Teheran's deal ramps up to $6.3 mil, $8 mil, $11 mil and a team option of $12 mil with a $1 mil buy out. That leaves some interesting ideas out there because by my estimation you still would have around $40 mil. You could probably sign Heyward and Fowler for that. You could sign a SP, Fowler, move Bryant to RF with Baez at 3B also having Villanueva in AAA and Candlerio not far behind if he didn't work out.

As such I'm really curious how this develops. I don't understand it 100% though because Teheran is 24 and under control for at least 4 years. This year wasn't great for him but looking at the numbers it appears his walks were up as were his HRs. Rest seems in line and i'm not really sure that's enough to be worried about so much so that you trade him. I wouldn't love giving up Soler(I'd prefer to trade Baez) but if he's the price for Teheran and trading him allows the other pieces to fit then go for it.

 

[CSF77]

I don't think you can even start with that sort of thinking on Almora. The problem is you really can't trust him to hit and that's compounded by the fact the player he would be replacing is your lead off hitter. If this were a case of something like Schwarber where his defense was iffy but you knew he could hit in CF I can definitely see that approach which i mean they did with Schwarber and to a lessor extent Bryant. Almora really hasn't even had a great full year. His best stint was a .329/.376/.466 in A ball but that was only 272 PAs and he struggled pretty hard in A+ and AA until the 2nd half of last year. I think minimum you're looking at a full year in the minors unless you're calling him up via injury or to be a bench player late in the year. And even when he is up, you're talking about hopefully an average hitter with great defense where as Fowler this year was passable defense and a pretty good hitter. There is some talk that the Red Sox are willing to move prospects and Jackie Bradley Jr. would be a sort of interesting non-fowler move. However, that comes with a lot of complications because are you really ready to just slot him in to your lead off or 9 hitter if you swap him and Russell?

To me the play is to re-sign fowler. He has the fewest risks and for a team with hopefully WS aspirations I don't think getting cute makes sense unless Fowler manage to get something way over the top contract wise. That may cost you the 2nd pitcher people want but you can always add more pitching later. And honestly, I think the cubs staff was better than people think. Apparently so does Theo considering he mentioned specific stats such as ERA and WAR in his presser.

My problem is I feel Fowler could get a 4 year deal worth 50 mil. I doubt they match it. They gave a Q offer to protect their interests with him. I believe he will walk.

Bradley Jr I would trade Almora out for and call it a day. I wouldn't even think twice on it.

 

[CSF77]

I find it interesting that Gordon Wittenmyer is really pushing this Teheran talk. He's the name that linked the cubs with Soler to the braves at the deadline and he had an article up today mentioning it. With that said he's not the only one who's talked about Teheran possibly being available. Jeff Passan said at the deadline the braves were listening on him.

Hypothetically, if you were to trade Soler for Teheran straight up the cubs would actually be saving about $300k in 2016 though Teheran's deal ramps up to $6.3 mil, $8 mil, $11 mil and a team option of $12 mil with a $1 mil buy out. That leaves some interesting ideas out there because by my estimation you still would have around $40 mil. You could probably sign Heyward and Fowler for that. You could sign a SP, Fowler, move Bryant to RF with Baez at 3B also having Villanueva in AAA and Candlerio not far behind if he didn't work out.

As such I'm really curious how this develops. I don't understand it 100% though because Teheran is 24 and under control for at least 4 years. This year wasn't great for him but looking at the numbers it appears his walks were up as were his HRs. Rest seems in line and i'm not really sure that's enough to be worried about so much so that you trade him. I wouldn't love giving up Soler(I'd prefer to trade Baez) but if he's the price for Teheran and trading him allows the other pieces to fit then go for it.

As the Cubs head into the offseason, the team is expected to look at reviving many of the summer trade deadline talks that never came to fruition, Gordon Wittenmyer of the Chicago Sun-Times reports. As president of baseball operations Theo Epstein said yesterday, Chicago is after pitching. The team could rejoin its pursuit of pitchers such as Tyson Ross of the Padres, Julio Teheran of the Braves, and Carlos Carrasco of the Indians, per Wittenmyer. Interestingly, he adds that the Cubs are rather enamored of Indians converted outfielder Lonnie Chisenhall, who rather suddenly became an outstanding right fielder last year after moving off of third base. Wittenmyer says it wouldn’t be surprising to see Javier Baez, Starlin Castro, or Jorge Soler (or any two of them) moved for pitching this winter, adding that Atlanta is “especially high on Soler.”

That would be interesting. Soler in a pack for Tehan. Then trading for Chisenhall to cover RF. Adds another LH bat but I'm not sure if he is a major upgrade to Coghlan. D metrics most likely but O .246/.294/.372 to Coghlan: .250/.341/.443 16 HR for Coghlan to 7 for Chestenhall,

Not really sold on it.

Now it the though was move Bryant to RF and Baez to 3B with Soler centered in a deal for Teheran I'm all in on it. That way they could use resource to lock Fowler in at CF.

Now to put it on the record. I'm down with them letting Hammel build up his value again. His 1st half stats for the last 2 years have been his career best. 2nd half is where he falls out of it. I would approach it as they did last year. Sell him while his value is good vs now when it is low.

Reason is they have Johnson in AAA next year and he becomes the new Hendricks. No need to block him. Add to it who knows if they make an attempt to let Edwards start. I feel that he will end up in the pen and as a future closer but you never know. Perdro was pretty skinny also with the Dodgers.