Author Topic: Cubs in '18 (Read 75762 times)

Ron · « **Reply #1530 on:** January 25, 2018, 11:02:46 am »

Jon Greenburg has an interesting article on The Athletic from his fairly extensive interview with Theo.

https://theathletic.com/221674/2018/01/25/theo-epsteins-almanac-a-fallow-winter-could-still-lead-to-a-prosperous-spring-and-summer-for-the-cubs/

Here are a couple of excerpts:

On the Cubs' closer situation and why the Cubs generally limit using their "closer" in the 9th inning.

And yes, the Cubs are done looking for a closer. Cishek and Carl Edwards Jr. are the backups at that spot, if necessary.

“When we signed [Morrow], we told him, in our minds, he was our closer unless somehow, we were able to bring back Wade Davis,” Epstein said. “It’s the best role for him.”

Like Davis last year, the Cubs plan on using Morrow exclusively in the ninth inning or later. (Davis entered with two outs in the eighth one time in the regular season, on Sept. 15.) If you're the kind of person who argues about old-school baseball vs. new-school analytics, Epstein explains how tradition wins out in how the Cubs still relate to closers.

“With Wade going exclusively in the ninth, that structure allowed him to stay healthy and thrive,” Epstein said. “That should serve Morrow well also. This is one of the areas where optimal analytical usage butts against reality. The best way to play someone like Morrow is matching up against different parts of the order in different innings. That’s where you can get the greatest impact from a shutdown guy. But in reality, using him the way we used Davis should allow him to thrive over what we expect is a seven-month season. I’ll take suboptimal usage on a nightly basis for a better chance to stay healthy over the course of seven months.”

On Duensing completing the Cubs' bullpen for 2018.[

“We were really happy in the end that we were able to bring Duensing back,” Epstein said. “We made a strong run at him early in the offseason and it didn’t look like it would work out. But he made a tough decision to leave a little more money to come back and be happy with us. That really completed our bullpen moves.”

On Theo's apparent openess to trading young core player(s) for pitching.

“I wasn’t going to rush into anything, but it was something we were open to,” he said. “We have two extra starting-caliber position players on any given night and we were going into the offseason short on pitching. If it was something we weren’t open to, we wouldn’t be doing our jobs. We explored a lot of a different possibilities, but in the end there just wasn’t a deal available that would give us a fair return back. We didn’t want to take less talent or control just to add a pitching prospect. Balancing the roster wasn’t that fundamental to make a bad deal happen.”

The reality is Russell and Schwarber, to name two tradable players, had uneven seasons that suppressed their value. Given their age and contracts — not to mention the Cubs’ payroll space — there’s no reason to sell low.

But there’s more to it than negativity, Epstein said.

“Our position player core is a big part of identity and we really believe in them,” he said. “It’s not a coincidence the Royals, us and the Astros all developed a position player core that came up together, went through adversity together, learned to win at the big league level, lost in the postseason and then came back in the postseason to win a championship.

“Trading away too much of the core would have chipped away at that identity a little bit and left us in a weaker position because these guys are a big part of who we are. Building around them and making the pitching work from year to year makes sense for us.”

CUBluejays · « **Reply #1531 on:** January 25, 2018, 12:00:47 pm »

https://www.fangraphs.com/tht/tht-annual-2018/batting-practice-is-probably-a-waste-of-everyones-time/

craig · « **Reply #1532 on:** January 25, 2018, 12:45:05 pm »

Thanks, Ron, interesting, and sensible.

I think I agree re closer, in part but not in full. Having a defined closer structures life for him, the other relievers, and the manager. That's maybe helpful. And I agree it protects the closer from getting overworked.

But I do think it runs the risk of overly irregular usage. For others, Maddon/Hickey can set up usage habits that protects against over-use. But can also decide how to keep them from getting rusty.

I don't think save situations necessarily schedule themselves rightly. Thought there were stretches last year when Davis pitched so little that he got rusty. Then suddenly he'd be going back-to-back-to-back. Think it's better to avoid weeks without at least two appearances, while likewise limiting weeks with as many as four.

davep · « **Reply #1533 on:** January 25, 2018, 02:23:48 pm »

There is no reason why the Cubs could not adhere to a schedule like that. In the rare situations where a closer could (should) be used 4 games in a row, they would not lose much to insert Edwards or Cishek could be used once without losing much effectiveness. The most difficult part would probably using the closer in a non-closing role. I don't know about Morrow, but it seems to me that most closers perform badly when placed in non-closing games.

guest61 · « **Reply #1534 on:** January 25, 2018, 04:23:20 pm »

Am I the only one here who is strongly confident that we'll add one of the big 3 [Darvish,Arietta,Cobb]?

I'd even go as far as to say Ill be surprised if we dont sign Darvish.

My order of preference would go Darvish,Arietta,Cobb BTW.

I'd love to find a leadoff option for cheap too.

CurtOne · « **Reply #1535 on:** January 25, 2018, 04:34:30 pm »

On St. Louis ESPN this morning they had a baseball writer on who had an interesting perspective on the free agent market this winter. He said that a third of the teams have no hope so why spend money on players none of whom would turn a franchise around by themselves, one third are so dominant they don't really need any of these players at the price they are currently demanding, and the middle third can't afford to spend the kind of money being demanded for the "chance" of getting better. He said it's not collusion, it's common sense.

craig · « **Reply #1536 on:** January 25, 2018, 05:25:14 pm »

Completion of Yelich trade to Milwaukee certainly does nothing to undermine the credibility of the supposed Brewers insider. Claimed the Cubs were going to sign Darvish, and the Brewers were 95% probably going to trade for Yelich.

craig · « **Reply #1537 on:** January 25, 2018, 05:34:35 pm »

Quote from: CurtOne on January 25, 2018, 04:34:30 pm

...one third are so dominant they don't really need any of these players at the price they are currently demanding...

Not sure how absurd the demand prices may be, and how prohibitive.

But in a world where only two teams make the World Series and only one wins, there's still plenty of competitive drive for teams like the Cubs to get better.

Tuffy · « **Reply #1538 on:** January 25, 2018, 07:15:42 pm »

Brew Crew getting Yelich is great news for us with Darvish.

Deeg · « **Reply #1539 on:** January 25, 2018, 11:14:38 pm »

FWIW another board's "insider" Marlin Bystro (who has demonstrably been right several times in the past) is betting on Darvish to the Cubs. Though to his credit he admits his sources aren't as highly-placed as they used to be.

brjones · « **Reply #1540 on:** January 25, 2018, 11:30:16 pm »

His source (or more likely, his source's source) is with the Diamondbacks now.

CUBluejays · « **Reply #1541 on:** January 26, 2018, 09:52:10 am »

I knew losing Jason Parks would suck...

I think there is an industry consensus building that the Cubs will get Darvish, but it could certainly end up being wrong.

CurtOne · « **Reply #1542 on:** January 26, 2018, 09:59:37 am »

I got too excited thinking we had Ohtani to get too excited this time. SHOW ME THE SIGNED CONTRACT!

CUBluejays · « **Reply #1543 on:** January 26, 2018, 10:49:27 am »

High Heat predicts 2 trades for the Brewers, but he is going ice fishing and expects a Santana trade soon, possibly today.

Just for fun I looked up the rosters for the Brewers and Cubs.

The "rebuilding" Brewers will feature a line up with 4 position player starters over 30 and only younger than Cubs at 1 position. I'm counting Zobrist as a utility guy or it would be 2. When Zobrist doesn't start the Cubs will have 0 position players over 30.

The Brewers pitching is younger, but the Cubs only have 1 starter currently over 30 in the rotation in Lester.

Looking at the farm systems using Fangraphs rankings.

The Brewers have 1 position prospect with 55 grade, and 3 with a 50 grade. The have 2 55 pitchers and 1 50 pitcher.

The Cubs currently have 1 50 grade SS in Aldeman and 1 50 grade pitcher in Alzolay. The thing is Dela Cruz, Alzolat, Aldeman, Albertos, Little and Lange could all bust out this year and have much higher grades.

But what does that mean in projections? The Brewers have 3 prospects projecting to 2.5 WAR/season. Are they really rebuilding? Is there window of competition really longer than the Cubs? Brewers fans really seem to think so, but I just can't see it.

Ron · « **Reply #1544 on:** January 26, 2018, 11:02:26 am »

Sharma on the Brewers and Cubs.

https://theathletic.com/222873/2018/01/26/how-the-cubs-will-or-wont-react-to-the-brewers-big-moves/

Bleacher Bums Forum

Author Topic: Cubs in '18 (Read 75762 times)

Ron

Re: Cubs in '18

CUBluejays

Re: Cubs in '18

craig

Re: Cubs in '18

davep

Re: Cubs in '18

guest61

Re: Cubs in '18

CurtOne

Re: Cubs in '18

craig

Re: Cubs in '18

craig

Re: Cubs in '18

Tuffy

Re: Cubs in '18

Deeg

Re: Cubs in '18

brjones

Re: Cubs in '18

CUBluejays

Re: Cubs in '18

CurtOne

Re: Cubs in '18

CUBluejays

Re: Cubs in '18

Ron

Re: Cubs in '18