Even though the postseason format will be virtually unchanged, the 2023 MLB regular season is going to look a whole lot different, and the scheduling changes could make the postseason even fairer and more exciting. But the changes in scheduling, coupled with the way the 2022 postseason played out, will inevitably change the way teams from the A’s to the Yankees compete from now into next November.
Balancing the scales (and the MLB schedule)
The 2023 MLB schedule will be the most balanced Major League Baseball has seen in its modern history. Every team will play every team. Each team’s divisional schedule load will drop from 76 to 52, so instead of playing nearly half of their games against divisional opponents, the Cubs will play just shy of 1/3 of their schedule against NL Central foes. We don’t really yet know if that will make their schedule more or less difficult, we just know it will make their slate much more similar to everyone else’s.
In previous years, NL teams in different divisions had just 52% commonality in their schedules, making team-to-team comparisons an apples-to-oranges situation. In 2023, the similarity in schedules within a team’s league skyrockets to 76%. That’s nearly what the previous common-opponent percentage was for divisional teams (84%) which will be 91% in 2023. Within the division, schedules are almost as balanced as possible (we’re talking a difference of a couple games against natural interleague rivals and the fact that no team can play themselves). Within the division, it’s straight-up apples-to-apples, and within the same league, it’s at least comparing different varieties of apples.
Overall, the breakdown for the Cubs 2023schedule is like this: 52 divisional games, 64 interdivisional games within the same league, and 46 interleague games. I’ve seen conflicting reports about how this plays out for teams in general, so I’m committing only to what I’ve counted up for the Cubs. For the sake of watching games being time-zone friendly, it’s a nightmare, but in the quest to correctly rank teams for postseason eligibility, it’s pretty ideal. (We saw the other extreme play out in the Covid-shortened 2020 season in which the NL/AL Central contingent had the most playoff teams and the least postseason wins. . . . Not great.)
So, the schedule is balanced, and the end-of-season results should be pretty fair, so this should make competition pretty fair and the need to stock your team with talent pretty straightforward, right? Just win your division and you’re in . . . right, you guys? Right?!? Well, when you factor in the postseason structure, not so much.
Bye, Bye, Bye
Never in this century has their been a balanced MLB schedule, and never in history has there been an attempt to include every team in both leagues into that balance. And never in the divisional era has winning your division been less significant than it will be in 2023. (This, in my opinion, is a wonderful thing.) Now, winning your division has been equally unimportant in the aforementioned 2020 postseason and in 2022. Why? Because winning your division in each of these seasons, including the upcoming 2023 season, does not guarantee a team entry into the Division Series level of the postseason. One division winner in each league will fail to receive a bye in the best-of-three Wild Card round, and that is a big deal in the postseason.
It’s also a big deal in the regular season (and the preceding offseason as well) as teams decide how much resources they want to commit to competing for a World Series. At this point, it’s a foregone conclusion that in any given season, many teams choose not to compete at all for a World Series. They operate not as competing teams but as MLB franchisers who are moderately-to-perfectly content building a roster with the goal of generating enough fan interest and revenue to keep profits soaring. It’s who they are, it’s what they do.
So before we get too far into discussing how the Cubs or any MLB team will compete for a World Series Championship, I suppose it makes sense to acknowledge that for many teams it’s more of a lottery than a competition. Given the crapshoot nature of the current playoff structure and postseason baseball in general, it’s not insane to view the whole thing as more of a sweepstakes than a competition. This is especially true for teams who don’t get that coveted Wild Card bye.
The 2022 season gave us a perfect example of how costly the risks of competing for the World Series can be. The New York Mets, who absolutely went all-in to make themselves World Series contenders built to succeed in the regular season (which worked, as they won 101 games) and in the postseason (which didn’t work, as they won 0 games) not only didn’t get a first-round bye, they lost the tiebreaker and thus the NL East championship to the Braves.
I’m quite certain MLB owners and front-office execs looked at the Mets (and the Division-Series-losing Dodgers, for that matter) as a cautionary tale. It’s like they bought $300 million in lottery tickets and won $200 million. (It’s not really like that; the Dodgers and Mets are making their respective owners filthier and richer by the day, but you can bet your ass owners and GMs see it as a catastrophic loss.)
So if you’re an MLB front-office person, or the one who pays the bills (or a fan who devotes serious time, money, and emotion into your team’s competitive success), what approach makes sense for competing to win?
Baseball Goals in 2023
Following a season in which spending through the nose worked to varying degrees of postseason success (Phillies and Astros were both top-10 in payroll, but Mets and Dodgers were 1 and 2) and spending below league average led four teams (Cardinals, Mariners, Rays, and Guardians in descending order of payroll) to the playoffs, the ideal strategy doesn’t appear to be a one-size-fits-all approach. But of the 11 most expensive rosters in baseball last year, only three (the Angels and the Sox of both White and Red persuasion) fell short of the postseason. The odds of glory certainly appear much better for the spends than for the spend-nots, but it’s not the only way to go. Here are the main approaches teams are likely to take:
Just Don’t Win
There are going to be 4 to 6 teams who decide heading into the season that winning is dumb. They’re not really worth discussing other than acknowledging they exist on the schedule and that they’ll be responsible for distributing hundreds of wins throughout baseball.
Probable result: 90-100 losses. Best their fans can hope for: not being eliminated from playoff contention until September
The Powerball Approach: Spend chump change and see what happens
Technically, anybody could win it all, and realistically a team that spends very little will probably make the postseason. Guardians fans are probably among the happiest, most hopeful in the league after seeing their team turn the third-lowest payroll (and the worst mascot name) in the league into a few playoff wins and a promising foundation for future success. The Tampa Bay Rays are perennial postseason contenders despite never having a payroll above $43 (citation needed). And, hey, the Phillies were just an 87-win team and they could practically smell the golden pennants on the World Series trophy.
Two caveats on the Phillies. Yes, they were an 87-win team, but they were also an 87-win team who played nearly half their games within the NL East, which means they played nearly a quarter of their games against the Mets and Braves, each of them 101-game winners. Secondly, they paid $256-million+ (4th in all of baseball) for those 87 wins. They definitely don’t belong in this category, tempting as it may be to place them here because of their 2022 win total. They spent like a team trying to be the best in baseball.
One more thing on the low-spending strategy: I care much more about the baseball than the business, and I think that’s pretty universal among fans. No one not in the MLBPA wants the owners to spend more purely for spending’s sake. Many if not most of baseball’s best players are too young to receive the big free-agent paychecks. I’d love as many talented 6-WAR players in their early 20s on the Cubs as possible. But the Cubs have no excuse for leaving gaping holes in their roster; most teams don’t. Many of the players available in free agency match the obvious voids in the lineup and in the rotation. Taking lottery-ticket option for the Cubs in 2023 would be a slap in the face to the fans from whom the Ricketts rake in their billions.
Probable result: 70-80 wins. Best their fans can hope for: a scrappy yet heartbreaking run in the playoffs.
Aim for the Division Crown, Hope for a trophy
A team could, conceivably, appraise the teams in their division and simply try to compete with that group. Let’s say the Cubs’ in-house ZiPS projections put the best NL Central competitor at 88 wins, they could construct an 89-win team and make adjustments at the trade deadline (the expanded playoff format has left MLB with no shortage of deadline sellers).
This is pretty obviously a losing strategy. It’s really just an alternate version of the previous approach. Let’s keep in mind that to have a strong shot at the World Series, a team needs a Wild-Card bye, something no team more than a stone’s throw away from 100 wins had a chance at getting. In a fair league with a balanced schedule and a handful of teams who are flat-out tanking, a team needs to be designed to win 91+ games and have some combination of luck and midseason adjustments to have serious expectations of playing in the divisional round of the playoffs, and still no guarantee.
There very well may be a few teams who reach the postseason who aimed no higher than to win their poor divisions. It’s also certainly not out of the realm of possibility that such a team could win or at least compete in the World Series. It is one possible, uphill, against-the-odds way to get there. But for a top-five revenue team to take this approach when stellar free agents are available would be tantamount to grand larceny. Paying money to watch them play, telling the Ricketts, “It’s okay, you should have more money to keep and do nothing with, here you go,” well, that is a choice one can make. So is bobbing for needles in a barrel of donkey piss, so whatever works.
Probable result: 70-80 wins. Best their fans can hope for: a scrappy yet heartbreaking run in the playoffs.
Build a top-5 team in the league.
If a team approaches this offseason intent on becoming no worse than one of the five best teams in their league, they will probably do so. Injuries will always be a factor, and luck isn’t always a lady, and Tony La Russa could be your manager . . . but the teams on the outside looking in who actually made a concerted organizational effort to be one of the league’s best are few and far between.
My record player is going to keep skipping, but the Cubs have no excuse to ever aim any lower than this. I won’t entertain discussion to the contrary. I’m sure some very intelligent people think otherwise, I just refuse to take such analysis seriously. Won’t do it. The bottom line is, there probably aren’t many more than five teams in either league operating like they intend to win a championship. If you’re not one of them, it’s obvious.
This approach doesn’t guarantee a first-round bye. That’s damn near impossible to do. It certainly won’t guarantee playoff success, because that IS impossible to guarantee. But teams that earnestly try to win at the very least don’t play more than a few meaningless games all year (unless they clinch halfway through September).
Probable outcome: 88-100 wins. Best their fans can hope for: NLDS appearance, NLCS if they’re lucky.
Go for broke. World Series or bust.
Mets. Yankees. Phillies. Dodgers. Braves. San Diego. Houston. Those are the teams that entered last year leaving no doubt they were going for a World Series. The Cardinals, White Sox, Blue Jays, and to some extent even the Rays probably belonged to the previous category. And I guess we should probably have another category labeled “Just mindlessly throw money at the fire” for teams like the Angels and Rangers.
But the teams who said, “Screw it, let’s win now,” made no mystery of their intentions. They continued attempting to improve their rosters until the rulebook forbade any further changes.
Probable outcome: 90-105 wins. Best their fans can hope for: a parade.
I just don’t feel it at all unreasonable to think the Chicago Cubs, whose last World Championship parade drew one of the ten largest gatherings of humanity this planet has ever known, should be going for broke more often than not. In any given season there are two dozen teams at least appearing as though they’d like to win. Last year the Cubs were not one of them. What the literal hell is that about?
Does it make sense to go for broke in the offseason? I mean, maybe not, even from a baseball standpoint. In the comments of a past post, I compared the owners’ silent collusion to a short-track speed skating race where no one really gets going until the last few laps but instead of saving energy they’re saving cash and instead of avoiding the risk of being disqualified or skidding across the ice, they’re just avoiding letting the prices get out of hand. But in the regular season, that metaphor could be comparable in a good way. You can build a pretty decent team and leave yourself some room to improve at the trade deadline. It doesn’t have to result in losing prospects with too much value for it to be effective. That’s pretty close to what the Braves did in 2021 on their way to hoisting the World Series trophy, and I don’t hate it as an overall strategy.
But we’re talking about the Cubs here. They have simply far too much money to ever not be good. Right now, I need to see some evidence they intend to win rather than simply hoping to.
Comments
This is the part where I quote the entire post and say “False”
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Rice Cube,
Well excuuuuuuuuuse me.
andcountingQuote Reply
Heh, Shelby Miller got a deal
https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2022/11/dodgers-to-sign-shelby-miller-to-major-league-deal.html
Rice CubeQuote Reply
andcounting,
Alternatively, you and I don’t often agree, or I can’t argue with you today
Rice CubeQuote Reply
It’s funny that Cleveland had a do-over on their previous shitty nickname and went with a shitty nickname, just less offensive.
dmick89Quote Reply
I still say they should have been either the Spiders or the River Fire
PerkinsQuote Reply
Perkins,
Spiders was so obvious and badass I think they should file criminal charges against the entire city of Cleveland.
dmick89Quote Reply
Don Mattingly was named Blue Jays bench coach behind John Schneider. I guess Tom Wopat was unavailable.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Maybe spend that on Correa
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Rice Cube,
I didn’t even know Mattingly wasn’t still coaching the Marlins.
andcountingQuote Reply
Rice Cube,
Also: There isn’t a team that couldn’t afford to pay cash to build a new stadium with the profits they’ve hauled in the last five years.
andcountingQuote Reply
andcounting,
Politics is weird, man
Rice CubeQuote Reply
andcounting,
I believe Kim Ng and Mattingly “mutually decided” to part ways sometime this offseason, and as someone who likes seeing some representation in front office personnel, I hope whoever owns the team now actually gives her some money to play with.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Bogaerts on the move…?
Rice CubeQuote Reply
I suppose we should expect action next week and sharpen our pitchforks if they don’t come through (dying laughing)
Rice CubeQuote Reply
I’ve never been to the Winter Meetings and I only live vicariously through the various intrepid beat reporters who do their jobs very well, but I have this vision of a job fair where the free agents kind of go from booth to booth where the teams have set up their pitch, with the exchange of resumes and corporate materials.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Rice Cube,
I mean, they’ll do . . . something. To clarify, saying they won’t be aggressive isn’t the same as saying they won’t do anything at all. IIRC, when they signed Yu Darvish it was really late in that offseason and kind of a shock that they pulled it off. But that, to me, is the opposite of aggressive. It’s . . . passive aggressive? (dying laughing) Like, hey, if nobody else is going to take this guy we’ll pay him. But if any other team had made a legit offer to possibly the best free agent starting pitcher available the Cubs wouldn’t have gotten him. It’s not aggressive, it’s sneaky.
It’s almost like the Cubs front office has the same approach to free agents as David Ross does to stealing bases. If we know no one’s looking we’ll swipe one, but it’s not like we’re fast or anything.
andcountingQuote Reply
Rice Cube,
(dying laughing)
Jed: Okay, Carlos, what is your biggest weakness?
Carlos: In high-leverage situations, I tend to get too many extra-base hits.
Jed: Is that really a weakness?
Carlos: It upsets some people, yes. But I’ve learned to accept it about myself, and I try to surround myself with people who struggle with the same thing so we can support each other and find a way through it.
andcountingQuote Reply
The NASCARization of MLB jerseys begins
Rice CubeQuote Reply
andcounting,
Maybe a stupid post is possible in the future where Carlos inquires about compensation and work-life balance and then gives his salary demands.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Rice Cube,
I wonder if that was collectively bargained and if any revenue from advertisements players wear on jerseys has to be shared with the players in some way.
andcountingQuote Reply
Rice Cube,
Carlos: Can I work from home?
Jed: Umm . . . we’re not really set up for remote . . .
Carlos: Oh, ok. This has been great, but I really need to get going. Definitely gonna call you. Or should I send a fax since you’re stuck in THE GODDAMN 1980s?
andcountingQuote Reply
andcounting,
It was collectively bargained, but I don’t know about revenue sharing. Here is one of many links you can peruse, probably have to refine the Google search parameters but it seems the details aren’t really out yet?
https://www.afslaw.com/perspectives/alerts/new-mlb-cba-allow-uniform-sponsorships
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Rice Cube,
Here’s a paywall article with the headline saying they already made over a billion even before uniform patches https://www.sportico.com/business/sponsorship/2022/mlb-sponsor-revenue-billion-jersey-patches-1234692610/
Rice CubeQuote Reply
andcounting,
I think the Cubs were always the leading team for Darvish. Any time someone mentioned an update on him I seem to remember it being pointed out that “it was still believed darvish would sign with the Cubs.” I felt they were aggressive on him, but not aggressive anywhere else. This year I’m starting to think the Cubs are going to be one of those few teams with no interest in winning games that you mentioned.
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89,
I hope the Convention goers bring lots of trash and rotten fruit to toss at the Ricketts then
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Hmm, that seems reasonable for Judge…8 years, straight $300MM
https://twitter.com/espn/status/1598031158742290434?t=gASIVY0jaKha0FkepxbSIw&s=19
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Rice Cube,
There’s no way he signs for that.
andcountingQuote Reply
Just did a little bit of googling and the Cubs emerged as the favorite the sign Darvish about mid-December after meeting with him. By about early January when no big free agents had signed many executives believed the Cubs had an agreement in place with him. A report out of Japan from December even mentioned that and included a contract value, which turned out to be fairly accurate.
This free agency is moving even slower than that one, but if someone like Judge signs the rest will follow.
The Cubs seem to just be lurking around a bunch of guys right now. They don’t seem to be overly interested in anyone yet, but maybe that will change next week. If we’re not hearing more about how the Cubs are narrowing their focus to some of these stars then the Cubs are fucked.
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89,
The Cubs also signed Tyler Chatwood and Brandon Morrow that year, both of them 8-figure AAVs. (dying laughing)
No wonder the Ricketts cut the superfriends’ FA allowance.
andcountingQuote Reply
andcounting,
The Giants are supposed to be pushing the envelope so we will see, I think it would obviously be nice if the Cubs didn’t play things that close to the chest but I’m cool with being pleasantly surprised as opposed to having to get my pikes and torches ready
Rice CubeQuote Reply
andcounting,
It probably could have worked if they didn’t suck/get broken
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Kind of ewww but I’m guessing we won’t notice it too much unless we just look for it
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Tyler Chatwood (dying laughing)
dmick89Quote Reply
Morrow was a calculated risk, but he was really good until Maddon used him too many days in a row. Chatwood was kind of a WTF all around, though.
PerkinsQuote Reply
Perkins,
I think they were mesmerized by his spin rates and raw “stuff” without realizing that he had no idea where the ball was going, sometimes the numbers can’t override what the eyeballs say
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Gonna guess most of the uniform ad patches will be released closer to the Winter Meetings as this seems to be a relatively big deal if companies are willing to shell out that much dough
https://news.sportslogos.net/2022/11/30/boston-red-sox-announce-massmutual-patch-on-jerseys-starting-in-2023/baseball/
Rice CubeQuote Reply
What are the Cubs slogans since Theo took over (now it’s Jed)? I know it started with “It’s a Way of Life” and there was fun to be had with that, and then last year was “It’s Different Here” but most of them must have been lame because I forgot them all.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Perkins,
At the time, I loved the Morrow and Darvish signings and I didn’t hate that the Cubs signed Chatwood, but I don’t think anyone else was going to pay him what the Cubs did.
After the season, though, I think the Ricketts family probably didn’t look too charitably on the signings in general.
andcountingQuote Reply
andcounting,
I think it’s a combo of bad signings and also bad business due to Marquee sucking + pandemic + just being a bad baseball team = less money
Rice CubeQuote Reply
andcounting,
I feel like the Darvish signing was really good, Morrow was okay to good with potential and I felt from day one the Chatwood signing was just awful. Chatwood had too much of a shitty track record to just say “but he’s got great spin rate.” Like RC said, they just fell in love with spin rate and ignored the actual results.
dmick89Quote Reply
I’m just now remembering all the chatter about Chatwood’s spin rate and how the Cubs thought they could unlock something. Too bad the player development infrastructure was still a few years away.
PerkinsQuote Reply
Rice Cube,
I don’t think I’m ever going to steer you away from the idea that money is at all a restriction for the Ricketts family, but regarding free agents, I’m going to try to restate my perspective in a more relatable way.
You and your wife like coffee, but every week you debate over the choice either to brew your own coffee or let her pick it up from FreeAgentBucks. Brewing your own coffee costs $10 a week. When you get your coffee from FreeAgentBucks, it costs anywhere from $25-$60 a week. Fortunately for the two of you, you have an OnlyFans channel aimed to a very specific and strangely dedicated group of viewers who pay at least $1,590 a week to watch you drink coffee. And, in general, the better the coffee, the more your viewers are willing to pay.
One week, your wife persuades you to order FreeAgentBucks, and she chooses a few beverages that week that are equally experimental and expensive. It costs $60, but the coffee is disgusting . . . and your OF viewers know it. Typically you could expect FreeAgentBucks stuff to be pretty good, and just a couple weeks prior splurging on FreeAgentBucks helped bring in $2,016, but this time? Just $1780. And a couple of those drinks really were gross.
The next few weeks, you put your foot down. No more FreeAgentBucks, and if you did agree to it, keep it simple and cheap. Could you *afford*to get FreeAgentBucks? Yeah, of course, no problem. Unfortunately, though, no matter how much money comes in, you still can’t get the taste of bad FreeAgentBucks out of your mouth, literally and figuratively. Sure, there’s no way you’re getting $2,016 again, but at least if the coffee sucks, you know it only cost you $10. And that just feels better than getting bitten in the ass. Cuz that’s an OnlyFans channel you don’t want to be a part of.
andcountingQuote Reply
andcounting,
I understand where you’re coming from, but I also think there were some revenue- and not just profit-motivated restrictions. However, what became apparent very quickly was that the 60-game pandemic season was the profit-motivated “break even” point for the owners that year, and since we don’t see anyone’s books but Atlanta’s, it’s anyone’s guess how biblical the losses were. I’m guessing that you’re more right than wrong about them just being money grubbing greedy bastards though.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
andcounting,
In retrospect I like the implication that we’re able to sustain an OnlyFans
Rice CubeQuote Reply
I was looking for my initial reaction to this deal. I didn’t like it, but maybe not as much of a strong hatred as I thought. I grew to hate it within about 24-48 hours though. Here’s a couple comments right after news broke.
Cubs got exactly 30 starts. Had the Cubs put Chatwood in the bullpen on day one, the contract probably would have turned out okay for them.
From here: http://www.obstructedview.net/the-scrap-heap/
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89,
(dying laughing) good call.
andcountingQuote Reply
Rice Cube,
My point here isn’t that they’re being money-hungry bastards, it’s that even if we set aside the corporate greed, they may have just soured on signing veterans to contracts in general, at least after 2018.
That next offseason, the Cubs signed no one for more than $1 million. The next season they splurged on Joc Pederson: $7 mill. Then prior to last season they increased their free-agent commitments by two whole digits compared to the previous two seasons. But by that point they had let nearly the entire World Series roster walk. It’s really incredible how gunshy they got for a couple years.
andcountingQuote Reply
andcounting,
I left out a season, post 2018, the Descalso era, in which they also committed to less than $10 million.
It’s frankly shocking they won the division in 2020 in the middle of all this.
andcountingQuote Reply
andcounting,
I do believe the drop in viewership (and by extension revenue) probably made them do the shrug and say “yeah maybe we should try to be good again” but the Winter Meetings are next week so we will know one way or the other, it’s the MLB modus operandi these days because #analytics and #collusion
Rice CubeQuote Reply
andcounting,
It’s easier to sneak into the playoffs when you only have to play 60 games
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Fixed
andcountingQuote Reply
andcounting,
Well, now we’ve come full circle something something balanced schedule
Rice CubeQuote Reply
So hey
Cocaine Bear
https://www.ign.com/videos/cocaine-bear-official-trailer
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Rice Cube,
This movie looks great and it’s got a nice The Americans reunion going on, which is a nice thing.
dmick89Quote Reply
(dying laughing)
dmick89Quote Reply
The thing about the Yankees leaking a $300-million Judge offer is how little it does for actual negotiations. Not that it’s ridiculously paltry, but after the year he just had the only legit contract comparison is Mike Trout’s two-year-old deal with the Angels. And anyone arguing that inflation is a thing that has happened lately has to fold that into the batter. Yes, Trout was much younger but the deal was also for 12 years (which you’d think would bring down the AAV in Trout’s contract). If Trout got ~$35 million/year plus hefty signing bonus x 12 years, offering Judge $37 million/ year x 8 years a couple years later isn’t going to scare off other teams or wow Judge. It’s a PR move to protect them if they don’t re-sign him.
andcountingQuote Reply
andcounting,
I’d like to know what the Judge/agent counter is
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Rice Cube,
I’d actually be pretty surprised if they counter that offer. You have to figure they’ve set an asking price already, and I would expect them to allow other teams to make the counter offers.
andcountingQuote Reply
andcounting,
In that case I guess it’s up to the Giants to blow that offer out of the water because it’s a pretty generous offer already in my mind, but I’m also a peasant and will never see that amount of money in several lifetimes.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Through a combination of the slow offseason and the fact that the folks of a certain persuasion are mad at me because I called their esteemed Elon Musk an idiot for putting Twitter on the road to ruin, posts haven’t been getting a lot of impressions on Facebook lately (and I have been lax on Twitter and Instagram) so my bad for daring to insult the supergenius, sorry folks.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Rice Cube,
If only two teams make serious inquiries into Aaron Judge, this sport may have an incurable problem.
andcountingQuote Reply
Rice Cube,
Meh, good riddance. No worries.
andcountingQuote Reply
I think Judge gets more than $300 million, but I wouldn’t pay him that much. He’s only hit over 30 home runs 3 times and has mostly been a .270/.360/.540 hitter. I think his best case scenario is a return to NY and remaining extremely productive for 5-7 years.
Despite that, these owners are billionaires and playing with a different scale than me. They can afford almost anything and there’s no excuse for them to be cheap. Someone will shell out 350-375 million. Doubt he gets to 400 though.
dmick89Quote Reply
andcounting,
I think it already has an incurable problem. It’s just on its slow, painful journey to irrelevance right now.
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89,
I’ll be intrigued to see how the players try to claw some perks and salary/revenue back in the next CBA, but paying the younger players a bit more is a start I guess.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
andcounting,
I’m mostly amused, I do this mostly to entertain myself anyway (dying laughing)
Rice CubeQuote Reply
dmick89,
Yeah, it’s an interesting question. Whoever signs Judge, they’re definitely buying as high as possible. The Yankees’ big mistake was failing to extend him prior to last year. I do think the Yankees are the most likely landing spot, but the amount really could come down to what happens with the shortstops and how long Judge holds out. If the Twins were to re-sign Correa and one or two of the big teams pursuing a SS miss out on all 4, somebody could get desperate. (dying laughing), imagine the Phillies signing Judge and just abandoning defense altogether.
andcountingQuote Reply
andcounting,
Lots of 13-12 games to be had, could be fun
Rice CubeQuote Reply
RIP Gaylord Perry
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Another NPB pitcher just posted
https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2022/12/npbs-hanshin-tigers-post-shintaro-fujinami.html
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Catching up…
Elon Musk is reprehensible. Anyone who took him seriously as a decent human after his interfering with the Thai soccer players wasn’t gaslighting themselves.
Dan Snyder: Hold my beer.
Actually, I think the Guardians isn’t a bad nickname. It’s not great, but it does fot Cleveland history. Yes, thr Spiders would have been better, but U Richmond was probably much more challenging to work with on trademark than a club lax team.
Here’s my top 3 worst nicknames:
1. Carolina Panthers
2. Jacksonville Jaguars
3. Eastern Michigan Eagles
For the NFL teams, these were expansion teams that could have developed something creative and unique but instead picked some of the most generic high school mascot names possible. Boring.
EMU were the Hurons. They changed their name in the early 90s after listening to arguments about dehumanizing Native Americans. Props for that. Seriously. But colleges have all kinds of awesome quirky nicknames like Horned Toads, Banana Slugs and Boilermakers. They had a one built in! Don’t overthink it. The Eastern Emus. Even if that was too hokey (that could be a nickname!), something better than the ornithological equivalent of panther was certainly available. Aces, perhaps, as a throwback to an early car manufacturer.
Now back to baseball. The rumors have put Correa with the Cubs since November, seems kind of similar to the Darvish rumors timline.
BVSQuote Reply
Still trying to get over Christine McVie…
BVSQuote Reply
BVS,
She was up there in years but still quite a shocker 🙁
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Rice Cube,
Yeah, 79. Not necessarily a surprise to loose someone at that age. But no more encores for Fleetwood Mac is a sad thing.
BVSQuote Reply
BVS,
They played that car commercial with her singing “Everywhere” all the time so that’s about as good of a song to get stuck in my head as any, RIP
Rice CubeQuote Reply
From previous: http://www.obstructedview.net/first-names-off-the-board/
And now this, so a price point seems apparent for shitty pitchers who might not be too shitty if Pitch Lab does stuff
https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2022/12/tigers-in-agreement-with-matt-boyd.html
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Rice Cube,
It’s weird to me that the fringe/reclamation project players (with the exception of Abreu) are the ones going early. Kinda reminds me of how the Cubs claimed Wade Miley off waivers right away last year. I kinda expect the Cubs to sign one $7-$15 million guy and one larger contract. I’d kinda like to see at least one of those deals happen before this weekend and maybe use the winter meetings opportunity to work out some minor trades.
andcountingQuote Reply
andcounting,
My original theory is that they’re done doing reclamations because they’re confident enough in their existing personnel to set that floor for them, and are going to throw all their available dollars at folks that we can agree are “good”
Rice CubeQuote Reply
andcounting,
Seems to me that Miley is still kind of a reclamation project based on his IL stints last year.
BVSQuote Reply
If the Cubs want to compete this year, they definitely cannot be cheap…even Zach Eflin got 3 years and $40MM
https://twitter.com/Joelsherman1/status/1598467802448351233?t=mTNEV3jb_cbSueesx28x5Q&s=19
Rice CubeQuote Reply
So the Cubs are apparently the favorites for Swanson. Why not just spend more to get an actual elite talent rather than whatever Swanson is?
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89,
Is Swanson a Boras client? If not, then I put high skepticism on anything Heyman says
BVSQuote Reply
“Let’s go, Dansby!” is not something I’m willing to say.
andcountingQuote Reply
Swanson has kind of a high productivity floor but that’s mostly based on defense. I’ll be really disappointed if he’s their big get this offseason.
PerkinsQuote Reply
Sean Manaeaeaeaea?
BVSQuote Reply
BVS,
Mana manuh (da da DA da)
Rice CubeQuote Reply
andcounting,
Perkins,
The rationalization that I’ve seen is that if they sign Swanson for less money they have more to throw elsewhere, but considering the napkin math I’ve already done previously on this website, they have so much room below the luxury tax threshold and if they wanted to not give up draft picks, they should just sign Verlander and Correa.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
It’s really too bad about the intradivision rivalry thing or else I’d say the Cubs should trade for Woodruff and Burnes since the Brewers seem to be getting set for a fire sale
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Patrick Wisdom to Mariners for Marco Gonzalez and cash seems like a reasonable trade to make.
BVSQuote Reply
Rice Cube,
Might be enough to push Tell Me Lies out of my head
BVSQuote Reply
BVS,
I had no idea he was from my hometown (Valparaiso, IN).
andcountingQuote Reply
Would prefer the Cardinals did not get their next Molina Brother right away
https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2022/12/sean-murphy-trade-rumors-braves-cardinals-athletics.html
Rice CubeQuote Reply
I keep forgetting to ask my more statistically astute compadres if the MLB-wide schedule balancing will strengthen the park-adjusted stats. Basically, does having a larger sample of different hitters and pitchers at every ballpark make the park-factor statistical trick more accurate or precise.
I ask because I’ve read plenty of explanations for why park adjustments work, and I full-on do not understand it. So I really don’t know if the change makes any difference, but it seems like it would. Anyone know better than I (a crazy low standard, fyi)?
andcountingQuote Reply
andcounting,
Well it probably does reduce the number of times the Yankees can take advantage of Pesky’s pole and the Red Sox can also play with the short porch (dying laughing)
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Lots of outrights and claims today, seems the teams are getting their rosters ready before the Winter Meetings madness
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Another price point to work with, former Cubs reliever who got traded for Zach McKinstry Chris Martin now with the Red Sox for 2 years and $17.5MM
https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2022/12/red-sox-to-sign-chris-martin-to-two-year-deal.html
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Moves getting made at the speed of sound now.
andcountingQuote Reply
andcounting,
I have limited knowledge on this, but I can’t imagine it would greatly impact the park factors. Perhaps the sources that include a running average of 3 years or more could see a small negligible change if you believe the divisions are disproportionately talented. I’m not sure I do. In recent years yes, but I can think of at least a couple examples in which the NL Central was the most dominant division in the last two decades (2015 they were the best in baseball by a considerable margin IMO and I’m pretty sure they were back in 2004 as well though I could be wrong, 2007-2009 the NL Central was pretty damn good as well, any of those years the Pirates contended in the 2010s). I think division strength is cyclical to some extent. Yeah, I think overall it’s likely you have more talent in the east and west because of market size and the ability to sign players (you covered this fairly well already), but I do think you see the central having the best division enough to have negligible impact on something like park factor.
dmick89Quote Reply
Wong –> Mariners
Winker –> Brewers
RC –> #ShrugEmoji but also good to not have to deal with that pesky Wong
https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2022/12/brewers-trade-kolten-wong-mariners-jesse-winker-abraham-toro.html
Rice CubeQuote Reply
dmick89,
That makes sense. I don’t know if I was even thinking about talent level so much as types of players or matchups or just general diversity. But I don’t even know if a ton of small samples is more reliable than several small samples and four really big samples. I also didn’t know if each individual player’s stats being sampled from 23 parks instead of 18 would matter, but even laying out the details makes it seem like the difference would be subtle at best.
andcountingQuote Reply
DJ Herz is next on the Cubs prospect video series
https://youtu.be/pPhVAdxS2ro
Rice CubeQuote Reply
DeGrom ———> Rangers
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89,
Holy shit. I guess Maddux is back as their pitching coach for a reason.
andcountingQuote Reply
Wow the Mets got scooped
Rice CubeQuote Reply
(dying laughing) I just realized my definition of aggressive in the free agency market is Texas.
andcountingQuote Reply
I’m seeing 5 years, $185 million. That’s a lot, but it’s lower AAV than Scherzer and not crazy Texas a lot. Definitely less than he would get if his health hadn’t been so sketchy.
andcountingQuote Reply
Now I’m seeing Passan reporting an optional sixth year that would make it $222 million overall. And I forgot about the no state income tax in Texas.
andcountingQuote Reply
andcounting,
Should note that the state income tax exemption will apply only in Texas. Pretty sure they have to do some splitting between government revenue services for games played in other states. As someone who has commuted across state lines I can confirm it gets pretty messy (though I never had to worry about that many digits).
andcountingQuote Reply
What do the Mets do now? Verlander? Okay, but now you’ve got two old starters and your risk is ridiculous. I know DeGrom wasn’t young, and he has an injury history, but so does Verlander. I’d go with Rodon.
Cubs odds of getting any good starter at this point dropped considerably.
dmick89Quote Reply
andcounting,
I think it’s a pretty good deal for both sides.
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89,
If I’m then I switch gears and try to outslug people.
andcountingQuote Reply
Seems like a good time for the Cubs to swoop in and pick up Jeremy deGrom on a bargain deal.
berseliusQuote Reply
Lose a ton of games, hopefully!
/Santo
berseliusQuote Reply
Correa and Turner. Pull a 2021 offseason Rangers.
PerkinsQuote Reply
Perkins,
Verlander is still on the board and with their pitching infrastructure in place the Cubs are uniquely equipped to weather the inevitable decline after the one good year he has
Rice CubeQuote Reply
I’d be ecstatic about Verlander. Supposedly they were close to getting him in 2017 and went for Quintana instead, though I wonder if he’d have had the late career renaissance outside of Houston.
PerkinsQuote Reply
Perkins,
Unfortunately that version of the Cubs coaching staff probably would’ve broke Verlander like they broke Quintana
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Perkins,
I’m wondering if they want to prove there really is no collusion between them and the Yankees and go after Judge.
andcountingQuote Reply
Rice Cube,
Who was the pitching coach then? I forget. There have been so many….
BVSQuote Reply
BVS,
Bosio?
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Rice Cube,
It was Bosio in 17 when they traded for Quintana and he was still good, then Hickey in 18 when he got bad, and Hottovy from 19 onward, when he remained bad.
PerkinsQuote Reply
Seems like a lot of teams not owned by the Ricketts wanted to get a deal or two done before the meetings.
andcountingQuote Reply
USMNT wins this game if they just clone Sergino Dest 10 times
berseliusQuote Reply
andcounting,
They seem to be the outliers and honestly if the Cubs just threw $350MM at Correa he probably would’ve signed already
Rice CubeQuote Reply
At least they’re not the Pirates eh
https://twitter.com/PGSportsNow/status/1599100307325059072?t=jaSXyD67g9fKKgBMOFVDDw&s=19
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Rice Cube,
That would be a trade I’d love for the Cubs to make happen.
andcountingQuote Reply
andcounting,
The next version of the Aramis Ramirez trade? I say YES!
BVSQuote Reply
Some of these contract estimates are really high and make me wish I was better at baseball (and a lot younger too)
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Day before the Winter Meetings, I think I still want the Cubs to do the following (in any order or combination)
1. Sign Correa for SS so Nico moves to 2B
2. Extend Nico and Happ
3. Sign Senga
4. Sign Verlander
5. Sign Omar Narvaez to be primary/platoon C with Yan Gomes
6. Trade for Sean Murphy if they dare
7. Sign any defensively competent CF
They can fill in the blanks later but this feels like the bare minimum to even have a chance to top the Cardinals in the division with a chance to build a midseason juggernaut at the trade deadline
My previous stuff from October http://www.obstructedview.net/the-still-too-early-cubs-free-agency-pitch/
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Ken Rosenthal’s mailbag is earlier than usual since the Winter Meetings start today, he seems to believe that as in years past, the new CBA is giving owners more confidence to spend which is why we see even reclamation projects get paid a bunch. Here’s hoping the Ricketts actually have cash and/or confidence then.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
And some competitive juice.
Based on their correspondence, cash and confidence doesn’t seem to be in short supply.
BVSQuote Reply
BVS,
It would be rather unfortunate if Cubs fans were forced to pelt them with rotten produce at the Convention
Rice CubeQuote Reply
New-ish shit until we get even more new shit if someone will do something already –> http://www.obstructedview.net/2022-mlb-winter-meetings-reset/
Rice CubeQuote Reply