I'm starting to hear whispers that the Cubs are already going to punt on 2014. I really, really don't get it.
Let's rewind the clocks to 2011, when Theo Epstein was hired. He inherited a really poor team and a really poor farm system. There was no chance that the Cubs were going to be good in 2012, and no realistic chance they were going to be great in 2013 either (no prospects were even close to producing except Brett Jackson and Andrew Cashner – Jackson profiled as an average CF and Cashner had a #2 ceiling and multiple arm surgery floor, with the latter much more likely than than former). It made sense to turn Cashner into Rizzo, punt the season, and collect some prospects. The 2012 season netted quite the haul – Albert Almora is a consensus Top 40 guy in baseball (and usually much higher), Pierce Johnson and Paul Blackburn are both intriguing arms (and Johnson is the unspoken Top Prospect in all of this. He's a Top 100 talent who has a great chance to see time in the rotation as soon as this September). There are some pet prospect-types in the lower rounds too (Stephen Bruno, Chadd Krist, Bijan Rademacher, Tyler Bremer). The Cubs traded Dempster for Kyle Hendricks (very good in minors so far) and Christian Villanueva, who is close to ready at 3B and could be flipped for something this off-season, and Paul Maholm for Arodys Vizcaino (who maybe someday will even pitch again!). While 2012 was a huge disappointment record-wise, it was a pretty large success with respect to turning around the farm and getting assets for expiring contracts.
In the 2012 offseason, the Cubs made a series of moves that seemed to indicate there was a chance for surprise contention. They signed Kyuji Fujikawa and Nate Schierholtz. They inked Scott Hairston and Dioner Navarro, too. These are all low-risk, low-upside moves that can be exchanged for marginal assets if the team doesn't work out. However, they also "signed" Anibal Sanchez, and really actually did sign Edwin Jackson (4 years, $52 million). Committing 13 million a year to ages 29-32 does say something about your willingness to go for it in relatively short order. For all the talk about getting free agents when they come available, that only makes sense if their peak relatively somewhat coincides with your expected peak. I think it's not only reasonable, but very very likely that the Jackson signing was more about 2014 than 2013 (and they put just enough pieces out there to even dream on 2013).
We all know what happened with Castro/Barney/Shark/Rizzo last season. They all either stayed in place or took a step backwards (sometimes several steps backwards). It was evident early that there were 3 juggernauts in the division, and even fringey competition was very unlikely. The Cubs did a phenomenal job in cashing in their chips for talent after that. They spun Feldman (another piece custom-made for a 2013 run) for Arrieta and Strop. I'm not sold on Arrieta being anything more than an average swingman going forward, but Strop can definitely be a nice piece in a major league bullpen for the next half of a decade. They spun Hairston for Ivan Pineyro, who impressed over 24 starts in A and A+ this year. Pineyro doesn't project to be anything other than maybe a longman or swingman in the majors, but he's not an NP and the book isn't written. They turned Soriano into some salary relief AND Corey Black, and actual prospect who probably ends up in the bullpen sometime, but has the swing-and-miss ability that seems to get more and more critical in the MLB today. Most importantly, they took half-a-season of an incredibly fragile, fairly overrated pitcher, and turned him into a haul at least vaguely resembling the one they themselves spent to get him 2.5 years prior. There are serious doubts to C.J. Edwards' size and ability to throw consistently, but he's played himself from the 48th round to a legitimate conversation piece somewhere in the Top 150 or so. Mike Olt is a season removed from being a Top 40 guy, and one that at least has a reason to point to for his 2013 struggles (though they aren't exactly encouraging ones). Justin Grimm safely profiles as a #4 or #5 starter in the NL, probably this year. Neil Ramirez has a #3 ceiling, though the floor is very low. He could contribute in 2015. They also drafted Kris Bryant, who could maybe start at 3B right now and put out a better offensive performance than Darwin Barney.
With all this in mind, let's look at 2013 the same way the Cubs looked at 2012. They have one more starter this year (Shark/Wood/Jackson) than they did going into the 2012 offseason (Shark/Garza/maybe Wood?). What's more, the free agent market is actually flush with mid-card rotational types (including that very same Garza that you had in 2012!). FA are more and more difficult to find, but Ubaldo Jimenez, Ervin Santana, Bronson Arroyo, Matt Garza, Dan Haren, Scott Kazmir, Paul Maholm…there are plenty of credible candidates out there, and they only cost money (a select few cost a 2nd rounder, which is no huge issue). Even if the Cubs don't sign 2 of these guys, they have credible candidates (about 8-10 of them) for those last two spots. One of them will keep the seat warm for Pierce Johnson and/or C.J. Edwards. You have an infield, not only for this year, but for the foreseeable future (in fact, you have an extreme logjam in the infield coming extremely quickly. Olt/Villanueva/Bryant could all force Valbuena to 2B…where Watkins and Alcantara could force Barney to SS…where Castro plays, and is about to be forced to 2B or 3B by Baez. Every person I mentioned has a even-money or better chance at playing in Chicago next year (or at least deserving it.))
You have to operate under the assumption that your good, young players (like Castro and Rizzo) are going to improve. If you do so, you really aren't that far away. Honestly, you could end 2014 with the following dream lineup:
C: Castillo
1B: Rizzo
2B: Baez
SS: Castro
3B: Bryant
LF: An offensive black hole this FO didn't address (Junior Lake's projected 91 wRC+ may take a step forward and wrangle this job)
CF: An offensive mediocrity this FO didn't address (Ryan Sweeney's projected 99 wRC+)
RF: An offensive black hole this FO didn't address (Nate Schierholtz)
UTIL: Logan Watkins
UTIL: Darwin Barney
UTIL: Luis Valbuena
UTIL: Brian Bogusevic
C2: Who Givesashit
#1: Jeff Samardzija
#2: Travis Wood
#3: Edwin Jackson
#4: Pierce Johnson
#5: Replacement-level guy this FO didn't address (let's say Justin Grimm)
The saying goes that hell is 70-79 wins. Unfortunately, if you stay at 65 wins in 2014, you can't reasonably expect to gain 20 wins in 2015. Those turnarounds don't happen. Even if that plan made sense, what happens if Baez hits .190/.230/.360 with 35% K rate? Soler never fully recovers from his tibia fracture and is injured and ultimately ineffective? Bryant doesn't learn to hit a breaking ball and washes out at AAA? Almora walks 3% of his MLB appearances and becomes a 4th OF? Prospects are just that; prospective members of a future team. It's a near-certainty that one of those 4 never plays a full-season for a MLB team as a starter. If we count ourselves lucky, 3 of them will make the majors in some normal capacity, and 2 of them will be league-average or better. Since we don't know which one's it'll be, it's foolish to delay being an actual team until we find out which ones it is.
It isn't like the top free agents are blocking anyone, either. The three top targets this offseason are Choo, Ellsbury, and Tanaka. There isn't a single guy that plays outfield for the Cubs organization from AAA to MLB that I'd sorely miss if they disappeared from the organization tomorrow. Lake could be something, but he's probably a utility guy. Sweeney's a 4th OF that'll start for us. Schierholtz is a nifty platoon, but he really came to Earth at the end of the season and still had a .301 OBP last season). Soler and Almora are 2015 guys at the earliest, and even if they both came, you could move Ellsbury or Choo around with ease. Also, if Masahiro Tanaka bumps Grimm to the bullpen (where some think he belongs anyway, though I'm not sure I'm one of them), that's a situation I can surely live with.
Simply put, waiting until next season for you to try to contend just means you'll wait until the NEXT year when you get there. No thanks. If this is what Theo and Jed plan to do, it's going to be pretty difficult to follow this team next year.
Comments
New Aside
http://obstructedview.net/minor-leagues/stars-of-tomorrow-cubs-afl-recap-111113.html
MylesQuote Reply
Agreed.
dmick89Quote Reply
I’m just tired of rooting for a shitty baseball team. At some point, they just need to start fucking winning.
Have fun with that one.
EdwinQuote Reply
Yes. From an offensive perspective, the outfield is a big problem if the Cubs are planning on competing before 2017.Even then, is Almora really going to produce a better career than David Dejesus (which is fine, but you know, not God)? Soler hasn’t shown much epic power in limited opportunities. Those are the Big Hopes.
For 2014 the minors offer us: Jae-hoon Ha, a fourth OF; Matt Szczur’s, whose hit and power have dwindled from OK to not OK for two years; John Andreoli, a weird option by year’s end (an “instinct guy”with great pitch recog and rather impressive base running skills considering his size and only average-above average speed) but has shown zero power despite his size. So, yeah, something is going to have to be done sooner rather than later.
A positive outcome for major IF prospects will be huge. For example, I think Baez is a very big deal this year. He will destroy the PCL, this I do not doubt. But, the Cubs are then going to have to call him up mid-year and he will offer a right hand power bat to protect Rizzo. If he stumbles look for fans to howl like it’s Armageddon. If Bryant fails to be a legit all-star offensive engine by mid-2015 then this team is in serious trouble until 2020.
For shizzles and gizzles, however, imagine that Baez comes up and does better than .250/.300/.450. Then Bryant arrives and does well. You then have a Rizzo-Bryant-Baez heart of the order and power becomes a minor issue. Suddenly an OF of tooly guys with decent OBP looks acceptable.
Get OF now, I agree. But don’t be afraid to get creative with the corners.
jaws of victoryQuote Reply
One more thing: Samardzija. I’m not a big fan and several teams are probably interested. Get it done and try to pull in a package that includes a legit AA outfielder with some sort of major offensive upside. Put him in Iowa.
jaws of victoryQuote Reply
I still like Arrieta’s chances as a starter, even if he turns out to be a #4-5 type. I agree that 2014 could easily be at least a mid-70s win team. I also wouldn’t be surprised if Bryant simply hit as soon as he gets to MLB, and that he gets there in late 2014. Dude can really hit.
I’m betting that next offseason, pieces like Alcantara and Villanueva get packaged in a trade. By then, the FO will have a better idea what they have with Olt, Bryant, and Baez, and exactly where they’ll be playing. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Olt be average this year, which would also be a bonus.
NateQuote Reply
@ jaws of victory:
I tend to think Bryant will become the OF masher. I’d think between Baez, Olt, Villanueva, and Alcantara the Cubs can more than adequately cover 3B and 2B. They could also sign someone there next offseason. Soler always gets graded as having significant power, he’s just not been healthy, which is a problem of sorts, but not of ability.
NateQuote Reply
Does Bryant suck at 3b or something? I keep being confused by the talk of moving him to RF. It’s not like there’s anyone blocking him at 3b at the MLB level, except maybe Baez who could also play 2b.
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ Nate:
Nate, thanks for bringing up Villanueva. The guy doesn’t get the props he deserves, I Think. Feel bad for him being stuck behind Olt, again. “Now, he can’t even see!” I can hear Villanueva grumbling. He’s put up .200+ ISO for two seasons. He’s a GG 3b. I’d gamble on him.
Bryant in RF is fine by me. I’m with you on Soler, but…I’ll put it in this roundabout way: Alcantara, who I like very much, needs to repeat his rather astounding AA breakout in AAA before I can totally believe in him. Likewise, Soler needs to put together an entire season of mashing before I’m willing to invest any serious expectations on his power grade.
Olt is like…I don;t know. There’s no way a all to predict what is going to happen. Either he gets over his troubles or he does not. No percentages to that. FOr that reason, I’m not even including him in my Imaginationland.
jaws of victoryQuote Reply
@ Berselius:
I don’t think he sucks, but word from the start has been that it was about 50/50 he could stick at 3rd.
dmick89Quote Reply
Berselius wrote:
There’s been talk since pre-draft that he might lose a bit of first-step quickness as he fills out which would move him off. People like his RF profile because of the big arm.
sitrickQuote Reply
new aside
http://obstructedview.net/aside/ryan-theriot-is-a-candidate-to-join-pat-hughes-in-the-radio-booth.html
BerseliusQuote Reply
Olt is pretty far down the list for me. Ideally, Baez moves to 3rd base (2nd basemen are easier to acquire). Then you figure out what to do with Bryant and RF seems to be the place he’d end up if you move Baez to 3rd. Olt has dropped a lot and I think Villanueva has a better chance of sticking at the MLB level.
I’d trade Olt this offseason.
dmick89Quote Reply
Even if they don’t become superstar hitters, Almora’s jumps and Soler/Bryant’s arms would make for a pretty stellar defensive outfield for a few years.
sitrickQuote Reply
I think the main argument against Bryant at this point is that he’s tall for a 3B. I’ve never played it, so I’m not sure how much of an impediment it really is.
MylesQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
I wouldn’t trade Olt unless there’s a team that still considers him a top-prospect. Is there? Honestly, I don’t know. Otherwise, you’re giving him away. Give him a shot in the spring.
The guy was getting hit in the chest by throws to third–that’s how bad this eye thing has been for him.
jaws of victoryQuote Reply
@ jaws of victory:
Didn’t Olt get lasik or something midway through last season?
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ sitrick:
Agreed on all counts.
But I was responding to the parent post. The outfield is an offensive black hole. Rather than sitting on hands, something should be done to increase the likelihood of improvement. I then supposed that the offensive upside for the Cubs’ IF prospects could take a lot of pressure off of the OF.
Now, what if your big OF prospects flame out? I think that is the spirit of the OP. Given the current system, the failure of any two major power prospects necessitates dramatic moves or further delay in fielding a non-putrid team. Maybe that’s not entirely true, as a ceiling dwelling Baez, Bryant, or Soler would, when coupled to Rizzo already make a very respectable 3-4 in the lineup.
jaws of victoryQuote Reply
@ jaws of victory:
I think even before the eye problems his strikeout rate was more than concerning.
I wouldn’t just trade him. You mentioned trading Samardzija. I’d think along the lines of including him with someone like that to get a little more in return. Nobody views him as a top prospect anymore, but that wasn’t too different than when the Cubs acquired him. GMs love to be the guy that took a chance on someone with his talent.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ Berselius:
It’s my understanding (and god, do I not want to track down all the random interweb rumors) that his treatment didn’t really take. He had recurrent problems in August.
jaws of victoryQuote Reply
@ Berselius:
I think he had it at some point, but at the time of the trade his vision was supposedly all better. Then we learned it wasn’t.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ dmick89:
Right on. I’m all aboard re: k%. The whole Brett Jackson affair has given me PTSD when it comes to prospects with big K’s.
jaws of victoryQuote Reply
To be clear, I’m not trading Olt for less than value. I’d look into a package built around Samardzija and Olt. If you can’t get value in return, keep them. I hate the idea of trading anyone just to trade a player.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ dmick89:
Ah. I was just under the impression that he was readjusting. I figured that a sudden change in vision, even a very positive one, would require some time to readjust to.
BerseliusQuote Reply
jaws of victory wrote:
The Cubs.
Omar LittleQuote Reply
@ jaws of victory:
Which is going to create an interesting ride the next couple of years with Baez and Bryant.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ Omar Little:
Ha!
jaws of victoryQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
Agree. for nontangible reasons, I see Baez making it, and I’m more concerned by his strikeouts than by Bryant. I haven’t even seen Baez play, in person, but even from that distance he looks to me like a heinous, absolutely evil dark overlord of mashing.
But hell, this is the year we find out! That alone makes 2014 a season to look forward to (and possible regret for several years to come)!
jaws of victoryQuote Reply
@ jaws of victory:
I’m still going to need to see these guys play at the MLB level for awhile. I’m looking forward to when they get to that level so we can see how they do. There’s a big difference between AA and AAA, but an even bigger difference between AAA and MLB. I’ll be thrilled if Baez mashes at AAA, but there have been a lot of guys who have done that and have still been pretty awful at the MLB level.
dmick89Quote Reply
This doesn’t even touch on the fact that Castro has to turn things around next year and that Rizzo needs to take a step forward too.
This is what irritates me. The Cubs are just hoping everything goes right. Knowing that they won’t, it’s getting difficult to enjoy this team. Even the minor leagues. Especially when it appears the Cubs money problems aren’t a short-term issue at all.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ dmick89:
No kidding. Seasons of “ifs” that never happen. Still, I think Rizzo will be fine. Castro concerns me more, and I’ve always liked him. Frankly, though, the Cubs can replace Castro from within. I’d rather he mature into a consistent .300 hitter with 20 hrs, but I’d rather not go to work today.
jaws of victoryQuote Reply
@ jaws of victory:
Yep, Rizzo doesn’t concern me as much. Not much at all to be honest. I think the Cubs can replace Castro from within, but can they replace the production they were expecting to get from him? Not easily. They gave the guy a lot of money and were clearly expecting a lot more.
dmick89Quote Reply
I don’t like the idea of trading Samardzija, because I feel like that would just turn into another reason for the Cubs to delay trying to win games.
EdwinQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
This is really where I am at this point. It’s hard to be emotionally invested in a team. When ownership isn’t willing to be financially invested in it.
I’m at a point where I’d almost rather have Jeff Loria in charge of the money than Papa Ricketts. At least Loria has shown a willingness to spend on occasion.
aaronbQuote Reply
I thought Olt’s vision problems stemmed from a concussion or something and which I would think wouldn’t be solved by Lasik.
WaLiQuote Reply
aaronb wrote:
Wrong.
fang2415Quote Reply
@ WaLi:
http://rangersblog.dallasnews.com/2013/05/rangers-prospect-mike-olts-vision-problems-still-not-fully-diagnosed-will-have-to-wait-10-days-to-see-specialist.html/
WaLiQuote Reply
@ WaLi:
I guess I don’t see the reason Lasik would solve his vision issues. Wouldn’t contacts do the same thing?
WaLiQuote Reply
Marlon Byrd —–> Phillies – 2 years/$16M
Aisle424Quote Reply
The thing with spending now is that there isn’t a clear place they need to spend the money.
The “core” has been disappointing so far and none of the next wave is going to face real major league pitching until at least June. So how can they decide where to best allocate FA dollars?
I know the losing is tiresome, but we’ve harped on them more than anybody over the years to not just piss money away and without having a pretty good idea of where they are without plugging in pie-in-the-sky assumptions about how Bryant will play here, Baez will play here and so forth, how do we know where to spend? We say all the time that if they get one impact player and one solid player from the Big Four, we’re doing well.
So which is it? Baez and Bryant? Soler and Almora? Almora and Bryant? The answer to that changes an awful lot and the Cubs have no reason to take a shortcut here and put millions of dollars on what would be an educated guessing game. The fans aren’t going anywhere.
I want to see some damn victories too, but I honestly have no idea where they would invest money in this FA market that isn’t just pissing money away in the hopes that fans feel better about it. Overpays for Ellsbury or Choo? Since when are Jacoby Ellsbury and Shin Soo Choo must-have talents? This isn’t when ARod hit the market or Pujols or even Beltran back in the day.
They have shown they can cobble together a semi-competent team through value signings and then it’s up to the in-house core to start doing their thing. THEN you go and make a big move.
We knew this was going to suck when it started and we knew the new CBA was was going to make it suck for longer than we were accustomed because they didn’t get on with it when the Ricketts first got here. All I want from this season is some rebounding from some of the current core and some continued progress from the guys that are coming (hopefully one or two of them can start playing at Wrigley this year). They probably won’t go into full sell-off mode at the deadline this year, so the team could manage to win 75 games if they construct a team that stays together all year. Shooting for anything more than that is just short-term solutions from Hendry’s playbook.
Aisle424Quote Reply
@ aaronb:
I’m getting fairly sick of the non-spending. I have been for awhile. I’m a fan of the Chicago Cubs. If I wanted to root for a team that wasn’t going to spend, it would be Kansas City.
dmick89Quote Reply
Aisle424 wrote:
He’ll fit right in with Ryan Howard and the rest of the aging vets on that team.
BerseliusQuote Reply
Aisle424 wrote:
This isn’t necessarily true. It’s not like spending money means you end up at one extreme position. I feel like we’ve gotten confused a bit. We’ve started to think that spending = Hendry, which isn’t true. I’m not suggesting the Cubs go spend $400 million in one offseason and handcuff themselves in the future. Spending does not by any means require you end up in the situation the Cubs found themselves in.
If you spend a lot of money, you risk ending up in that position. If you don’t spend, you risk being in a state of permanent rebuilding. Rebuilding does not guarantee success and neither does spending. There’s a combination in between, along with some luck, that will enable consistent winning. It’s not either/or.
If the Cubs don’t invest money at the MLB level, I have a hard time caring about not just the MLB team, but the wishful thinking that goes along with dreaming about the minor leagues.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ WaLi:
There was a concussion last year, but I know I’ve read how confused the doctors are about what’s happening. A concussion is a possibility, but I seem to recall the doctors just not knowing what the hell was going on.
I think it was GW who said it at the time of the trade, but there was good reason to be concerned about his future. The guy has vision troubles and no one knows what’s going on. It’s not something they can fix. not yet.
dmick89Quote Reply
Aisle424 wrote:
They need pitching. They need outfielders. I wouldn’t go out and sign a shortstop. Between Castro and Baez, that position should hopefully be filled. I’d have no problem signing a 2nd baseman.
Even if the Cubs acquired a shortstop, they could move Castro to 2nd and move Barney in a trade. They could move Baez to 3rd. They could trade Castro.
The Cubs core does not have to include Castro. It doesn’t have to include Rizzo either. Or Baez.
There are two good outfielders available in Ellsbury and Choo. The Cubs could sign both and they’re not going to block any prospect in the next 2 to 3 years. If the Cubs are thinking they can’t sign a CF because of a prospect in A ball (Almora), they’re doing it wrong. You don’t hold a spot for a minor leaguer when he hasn’t appeared above A ball. Or A+ for that matter.
Free agency is limited anymore. You have to take advantage of what’s available and alter your plans if necessary. Ideally, if they signed Ellsbury, and our wishes were filled by giving us an awesome Almora, you could still trade Ellsbury while he’s productive.
If we’re going to dream about having an all-prospect team, how is that not something we can see as possible? It’s more likely than it is than the Cubs end up with an all homegrown group of all-stars.
Baez is a special prospect. He’s the only prospect I’d even consider “holding” a spot open for.
The Cubs held a spot for Mark Prior in their rotation in 2002 knowing he’d not spend much time in the minors. That was the last prospect the Cubs had worthy of actually “saving” a spot for until Baez.
dmick89Quote Reply
I’m really okay with things as long as we stay ahead of the Astros’ development plan. I think it’s really easy to underestimate how difficult the new CBA has made things, not only as far as the draft and IFAs go, but the ripple effect throughout free agency. Kendrys Morales turned down a qualifying offer. Ervin Santana wants a 100 mil deal and will likely come close to getting it. I read somewhere that Choo is after a 4/5 year deal pushing 100 mil. The highest expected value option on the free agent market is Tanaka, and the Cubs seem to be indicating strongly that they plan on making a serious run at him. I don’t know what more you can ask for.
sitrickQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
This!
aaronbQuote Reply
@ sitrick:
I’m not doom and gloom quite yet. If the Cubs are seriously in on free agents and just miss, well, that’s baseball. If they aren’t in the discussions (or are only in nominally, which is hard to gauge), then I think it’s a serious, serious mistake.
I keep hearing that the Cubs can’t outspend the Dodgers or Yankees. That’s bullshit. The payroll is whatever the Cubs want it to be. That’s one of the bonuses of being in a major market with a national cache. You can outspend your mistakes to a degree. I keep hearing problems with revenue streams, and ad partnerships, and stuff that a team like the Cubs shouldn’t have to worry about. The best revenue streams there are are a) a lucrative TV deal, which has a timetable the Cubs can’t really control and/or wait for and b) having people actually attend your baseball games, and spend time/money/energy in or around your sphere of influence. You can only win 65 games so many times before you have a fanbase similar to the White Sox.
MylesQuote Reply
Also, I’m not sure I wouldn’t sign Choo to 5/100 right now, especially if it turns out that a FA win is actually $7 million and not $5 million. It’s an overpay, but not a criminal one. I don’t know. The absolute focus should be on Tanaka. I don’t know how much it would cost, but I’d be tremendously disappointed if the Cubs didn’t put together a huge bid for him.
MylesQuote Reply
Myles wrote:
Agreed. As much as I’d like to have Tanaka or Ellsbury or Choo, if I was to learn the Cubs offered a comparable amount to the winning bid, well, you can’t really complain. If it turns out they’re just in to be in and offer way less, well, that’s bullshit.
dmick89Quote Reply
So we sign the two top OFers, who will be 30 and 31 and where does that leave us? A lineup something like this:
Ellsbury CF
Choo RF
Castro SS
Rizzo 1B
Valbuena/ right-handed platoon 3B
Schierholtz/RH platoon LF
Castillo C
Barney 2B
And a rotation something like this:
Samardzija
Wood
Jackson
Arrieta
Villanueva/Rusin/Baker?
Are we excited about that? Are we excited enough to spend the $200+M it will take to land those two guys plus nobody else?
IF Castro and Rizzo rebound and IF the top 3 pitchers pitch like we hope they can and IF everybody stays healthy, there are the makings of about a .500 team there.
You throw in Bryant and Baez mid-season and assume they do well, you could look at a wildcard as an outside possibility. That is a lot of ifs to spend $200M on and a very small return on investment.
There will be free agents next year. Why do they have to have Ellsbury and Choo? I don’t even think I give a fuck about any of the other FAs this year (I may be forgetting someone).
It seems like the 2015 class will be deeper (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015-mlb-free-agents/) and offer better options, so why tie up so much money in the here and now for very little reason? What will they lose? The season ticket holders aren’t going anywhere.
Aisle424Quote Reply
I’d rather they signed Carlos Beltran to have around as a solid professional and still potent bat that won’t cost the world and will come off the books sooner.
The Cardinals got a lot of mileage out of getting Berkman for a last hurrah and Beltran for a couple solid seasons. I’m fine if the Cubs can do that with Beltran or somebody. Maybe Granderson is more in their price range after the injuries? They don’t have to do bargain basement like Schierholtz, but the mega deals just don’t make a lot of sense right now. To me.
Aisle424Quote Reply
New Shit
http://obstructedview.net/commentary-and-analysis/on-rick-porcello.html
MylesQuote Reply
Aisle424 wrote:
That’s not the best way to look at it. Say those two cost $200 million for 12 years total. That’s $33.3 million for the two of them in 2014 and an outside chance of a wild card. Then they spend $33.3 million in 2015 (the free agent field that appears deeper will only thin out over the next year), hopefully have an improving Baez/Bryant and maybe add a pitcher to the mix. Then they have a good chance at a wild card.
Signing a player long term is not about winning next year. It’s about winning in the future. If they sign a couple good player longterm this winter, they’re better in 2014 and 2015. Those players didn’t suddenly vanish from the roster in 2015.
It’s better than this:
dmick89Quote Reply
Jhonny Peralta and Corey Hart didn’t get qualifying offers and could both lumber around LF as well as Soriano could, in theory.
Aisle424Quote Reply
@ Aisle424:
Agreed on this. What if by some miracle Kershaw makes it to free agency? What if by some even bigger miracle Baez, Soler, Bryant, and Almora all hit, and need to be locked up to longer deals? All of the sudden the payroll is bumping up against the luxury tax because of a misguided attempt to win 75 games in 2014. Meanwhile, crappier draft pick next season, presumably fewer lottery ticket signings that could be flipped for value at the deadline, etc etc.
I’d love to have Choo or Ellsbury on the team next year. But I’d also love to not have payroll tied up in guys that are at best going to push the team into low-eighties win totals.
sitrickQuote Reply
@ sitrick:
Well, if all those guys hit, I don’t think any of us are going to be too concerned about the Cubs situation, payroll included. They could trade guys left and right and maintain the best farm system in baseball while winning 95 games. I’ll take that. If that’s the miracle that happens from signing a couple big free agents this winter, sign me up.
I have an honest question. Why is that we can easily reach the point of imagining a miracle, but we can’t see the far more realistic chance of A) none of them working out or B) the positive outcome of signing some big-name free agents? I feel that this has become a problem with Cubs fans. The belief in the miracle outcome of the future and miserable outcome of any investment now. It’s become as frustrating to me over the last 12 to 24 months as the fans who tried to run Zambrano and others out of town before that.
Mention the possibility of none of them working out (a real possibility) and you’re seen as a bad fan or something. Bring up the possibility of improving now as a means to also improve in the future (how things are usually done in the game) it’s as if the organization would be taking three steps back.
dmick89Quote Reply
I’ve asked this one before, but I’ll ask it again. If the plan is to wait to spend until the Cubs are good, when do they know? Presumably, you’d have to wait until Baez and Bryant are at the big leagues. Soler too? Any others? Do they have to prove they can play at the MLB level first? How long does that take? A year? For me to take any pitcher too seriously, I need two years. For a position player, a year is OK, but more would be preferred. Does it take that long? None of those are really the questions though. What if they don’t work out? What if Baez turns out to just be a back-up? It’s not that difficult to imagine a top prospect becoming a back-up. Or a AAAA type player. What if they just don’t work out? Then what? Wait for Soler and Almora? What if they don’t work? We go onto the next crop of prospects?
dmick89Quote Reply
@ dmick89
Agreed on all of this. There was plenty of wisdom in doing what they did back in 2012 given the state of the organization top to bottom, but considering how one of the primary objectives has now been achieved–and then some–it’s time to go about the business of actually building a winner using all the means available. There are players out there who can not only help thrust the Cubs into at least fringe contention in the short-term, but still be a valuable part of a winning Cubs team once the Big Four (and others) arrive. To not go hard after these players makes the end of success too hard to achieve given the narrow means being employed.
Time for Theo to sack up and spend some cash. You can’t always keep running from the ghost of Carl Crawford.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
The part the kills me is the “You just don’t get it” crowd that will attack if you suggest ownership should spend some money.
People are getting far too caught up in prospecting, and missing that we are about to enter year FIVE of being among the worst teams in baseball.
aaronbQuote Reply