Author Topic: Cubs in ‘23  (Read 54903 times)

CUBluejays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17344
Re: Cubs in ‘23
« Reply #1695 on: February 10, 2023, 11:58:52 am »
ZIPS gives the Cubs a better projection than Steamer.

Cardinals: 91-71
Brewers: 83-79
Cubs: 78-84
Reds: 70-92
Pirates: 68-94

guest405

  • Guest
Re: Cubs in ‘23
« Reply #1696 on: February 10, 2023, 12:30:33 pm »
Itll take breakout years from Mervis and Davis to be a contender.

CUBluejays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17344
Re: Cubs in ‘23
« Reply #1697 on: February 10, 2023, 12:33:48 pm »
Itll take breakout years from Mervis and Davis to be a contender.

Dansby Swanson doing damage on breaking balls
Mervis or Davis breaking out
Young pitching stepping up
Nico and Happ continuing with their breakouts
Bellinger being at least average on offense
Suzuki breaking out as well.

That is probably the minimum of what needs to happen to be a Wild Card team.

Reb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5086
Re: Cubs in ‘23
« Reply #1698 on: February 10, 2023, 12:51:09 pm »

….That is probably the minimum of what needs to happen to be a Wild Card team.

Winning the division is the best chance, seems to me——more so than Wild Card.

ZiPS seems light on the Phillies and Padres. See Cards winning fewer games than the three NL East clubs and Padres and Dodgers in West. And, Brewers seem kind of blah.

In any case, projections have a large component of idle chatter.

Happens every year: plenty of surprises. Play the games and see what happens.

CurtOne

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27243
Re: Cubs in ‘23
« Reply #1699 on: February 10, 2023, 01:34:01 pm »
I think we could limit injuries if we just played the games on the computer.  Fewer TJS situations, in the NBA fewer ACL's, in Football fewer concussions. 

brjones

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25868
Re: Cubs in ‘23
« Reply #1700 on: February 10, 2023, 02:12:36 pm »
Here's the reliever we've been expecting them to sign:

Ken Rosenthal @Ken_Rosenthal
Free-agent right-hander Michael Fulmer in agreement with Cubs, sources tell @TheAthletic.
Optimistic Optimistic x 1 View List

davep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15849
Re: Cubs in ‘23
« Reply #1701 on: February 10, 2023, 02:20:00 pm »
I think we could limit injuries if we just played the games on the computer.  Fewer TJS situations, in the NBA fewer ACL's, in Football fewer concussions. 

Yeah.  But one computer crash could wipe out the entire season.

guest405

  • Guest
Re: Cubs in ‘23
« Reply #1702 on: February 10, 2023, 02:23:47 pm »
So is Fulmer the closer or Boxberger?

JeffH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6154
Re: Cubs in ‘23
« Reply #1703 on: February 10, 2023, 02:23:55 pm »
How much would you guess, br?

$4 with incentives for appearances and games finished that could take it to $7?

craig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13097
Re: Cubs in ‘23
« Reply #1704 on: February 10, 2023, 02:50:08 pm »
Jeff, what are you thinking for length?  I admit I'd actually like for a 2-year deal, in case he's good.  The 1-year sign-and-trade deals are good during rebuilding.  But for a 29-year-old, I'd kinda like to control him longer in case he ends up being solid. 

Playtwo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8787
Re: Cubs in ‘23
« Reply #1705 on: February 10, 2023, 02:51:36 pm »
Why not longer?  He seems like a good bet to be good.  Possibly excellent.

craig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13097
Re: Cubs in ‘23
« Reply #1706 on: February 10, 2023, 02:51:38 pm »
Jeff, I know you've posted this before, but how much space did you think they had below the lux line prior to Fulmer? 

I appreciate that there isn't much.  But I'm wondering whether there might be enough left to sign a low-end lefty still?  Like, somebody who'd get a guaranteed deal with a promised spot on the 26-man roster, as opposed to a guy who isn't good enough to command more than a non-roster invite? 

JeffH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6154
Re: Cubs in ‘23
« Reply #1707 on: February 10, 2023, 02:55:03 pm »
Jeff, what are you thinking for length?  I admit I'd actually like for a 2-year deal, in case he's good.  The 1-year sign-and-trade deals are good during rebuilding.  But for a 29-year-old, I'd kinda like to control him longer in case he ends up being solid. 

Craig, based on what's been going on in the market, if it's two years, it might be with an opt out after the first year, a la Mancini.

JeffH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6154
Re: Cubs in ‘23
« Reply #1708 on: February 10, 2023, 02:59:46 pm »
Jeff, I know you've posted this before, but how much space did you think they had below the lux line prior to Fulmer? 

I appreciate that there isn't much.  But I'm wondering whether there might be enough left to sign a low-end lefty still?  Like, somebody who'd get a guaranteed deal with a promised spot on the 26-man roster, as opposed to a guy who isn't good enough to command more than a non-roster invite? 

Craig, I had them at $10.5 under, pre-Fulmer.  That did not account for any exposure resulting from performance-related incentive bonuses.

craig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13097
Re: Cubs in ‘23
« Reply #1709 on: February 10, 2023, 03:21:11 pm »
Craig, I had them at $10.5 under, pre-Fulmer.  That did not account for any exposure resulting from performance-related incentive bonuses.

I wonder how they think about the lux-line stuff.  For example:
1.  We cannot and will not go over.  Even if we're having a stunning season and in first place at the deadline, we will not go over no matter what.  Or
2.  We don't want to plan to go over.  But if we're hypothetically having a division-winning season because some guys are having great seasons and hitting incentives, we'll be happy to go over.  If we're having a division-winning season with a chance to win a playoff series, maybe we'll also be willing to add more salary and go further over with deadline pickups?

If the latter mindset was at play, then you might bump closer against it pre-season.  If the team is losing and selling, you can sell a contract or two at the deadline to ensure that you stay under.   But *if* they are willing to go over if the team is actually winning, then maybe they'd be more willing to bump closer against it to start?