Author Topic: Cubs in '12  (Read 203046 times)

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14445
Re: Cubs in '12
« Reply #10140 on: December 03, 2012, 11:10:30 am »
I like Valbuena as a bench guy going into the season.  Still, he had his chance to make a case for an every day job last season, and he didn't take advantage of it.  We don't need to go into next season with a guy coming off a .650 OPS season and with a .635 OPS over 1,000 AB for his career as our starting 3B, no matter where we are in the rebuilding process.

Even if we're not exactly looking like World Series contenders, we can do better than that.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26959
Re: Cubs in '12
« Reply #10141 on: December 03, 2012, 11:24:00 am »
Yeah, I don't understand the "we're not contenders, so let's not even try" concept.  No one thought the A's or Orioles would be close in 2012 last year at this time, and they both made it to the playoffs.  Sure, it's unlikely something like that will happen...but it's even less likely if they go into the season with a giant hole at a position when it's not really any harder to go in with an anti-awful-at-worst option instead.

Plus, I'm one who believes that there is value to a 75 win season over a 65 win season, even if you're not going to make the playoffs either way.  If the Cubs fielded a 75 win team in 2013, they're only a few tweaks away from being interesting in 2014.  If they put another potential 100 loss team on the field, It takes a major overhaul next year to make them interesting in 2014.  Better to try to take some steps forward this year and not just punt it, IMO.

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 29618
Re: Cubs in '12
« Reply #10142 on: December 03, 2012, 11:49:35 am »
Purple, br.  Purple

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14445
Re: Cubs in '12
« Reply #10143 on: December 03, 2012, 12:41:35 pm »
I don't think br needs purple, myself. : )

Especially the last paragraph, I also think there's value in being a somewhat competitive 75 win team instead of the Triple-A caliber team we had at the end of last year.  Just from the perspective of being a fan and wanting to be interested in watching them play next year, I don't want to see us go through another 100 loss season.  Especially the second half of last season, there was absolutely no reason to watch when we were pitching guys like Justin Germano and Chris Rusin every day.  There's value in not being a complete embarrassment like that again.

Pretty much, we can sign a competent major league third baseman without it hindering our rebuilding plan.  We can sign competent major league starters like Feldman or Baker without it hindering things.  No reason to settle for a guy coming off a .650 OPS or a .635 career OPS at 3B or to be starting guys like Germano or Belken again.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2012, 12:44:27 pm by JR »

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26959
Re: Cubs in '12
« Reply #10144 on: December 03, 2012, 12:47:59 pm »
Bruce Levine has now said the Cubs are interested in Jason Grilli, confirming the rumor from the PSD insider the other day.  Interesting.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18846
Re: Cubs in '12
« Reply #10145 on: December 03, 2012, 12:59:13 pm »
To win the world series your going to need some elite talent or relay on pure luck and hope to catch lightening in the bottle.  There are 3 ways to get elite talent, you either 1) buy it 2)trade for it 3) draft/IFA.  More and more teams are locking up the elite guys to contracts to keep them from free agency so it is going to be harder to buy it.  Building a team this means your going to get older players and have less of a window to win it all.  Trading for it can either be dumping MLB players for prospects (dicey at best) or sending prospects for the younger established players (think Price).  This is going to cost a lot of prospects to do it.  The last way lets you build for a longer window.  It also allows payroll flexibility to add the grizzled vet through free agency that is the missing piece or pull of a Dodger/Blue Jay trade.  The reason you have to suck, is because MLB took away all the best ways to build a system before this.  Before you super-slot, you build up comp picks by arbing people, spend a ton on elite IFA.  Now with caps on all this, the worse off you are, the more $$$ to buy the better younger players.  If the Cubs suck for 1 more year, I think you can stock the system pretty well for the long term.  It sucks to watch, but do you want to win the World Series or be the next Orioles/A's team that becomes 3rd loser.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14445
Re: Cubs in '12
« Reply #10146 on: December 03, 2012, 01:14:45 pm »
Quote
If the Cubs suck for 1 more year, I think you can stock the system pretty well for the long term.  It sucks to watch, but do you want to win the World Series or be the next Orioles/A's team that becomes 3rd loser.

It's probably a moot point anyway because the Cubs are probably going to suck enough next year to get another high draft pick in 2014.

Still, if the Cubs have to more or less intentionally be a 100 game loser for 3 years or so for us to get talent, then quite frankly Theo Epstein really isn't the brilliant baseball executive he's made out to be.  We ought to have smart enough people in place to be able to develop enough talent where we don't have to completely tank for 3-4 years to do it. 

I think Theo and company are doing it the right way so far.  Sign some 1-2 year stopgaps like DeJesus, Maholm, Baker, Feldman, etc. and at least try not to embarrass ourselves on the field while we're getting the system built up.  Maybe even hand out a 3 year contract if the farm isn't close to producing a quality player at that position.  If you're lucky, maybe you get an 85 win team and a wild card contender while bringing the farm system and the organization back to health.

But I don't see much point in pretty much accepting 100 loss seasons until we get the farm built back up, or even more or less intentionally tanking seasons to try to get premium draft picks.  Pretty much anyone with a Baseball America subscription could implement that strategy.  If Theo and Hoyer have to resort to that kind of strategy, then they're pretty overrated baseball executives.  There's no reason to be accepting that every year until Baez and company are ready, we should accept spending the second half of every season seeing guys like Justin Germano, Casey Coleman, and Jason Belken in the starting rotation and putting glorified Triple-A teams out on the field.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2012, 01:16:20 pm by JR »

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16248
Re: Cubs in '12
« Reply #10147 on: December 03, 2012, 01:27:11 pm »
We're probably better off long-term to be going with Belken-Germano-Rusin-Raley-Coleman, with Valbuena/Vitters at 3rd, Clevenger/Castillo at C, and Jackson in center.  We might lose 140 games. 

But I don't think Theo has the stomach for that.  I think they'd like to get some competitive players who can get you near or over 70-wins, even if that means you draft in the Colvin area of the draft rather than the Harper/Strasburg/Arod/Griffey top. 

My guess is we end up somewhere in between.  Not being absolutely awful #1 pick bad, but probably still bad enough to be in the top 10.  I can't remember where some of the Cub picks have been, I'm think Corey was #4, wood #3 or 4, Harvey around #6, Almora #5, Mike Harkey was #4, Ty Griffin was #12 maybe, Glanville was around #12, Earl Cunningham around #8..

Actually, this is fun, I'm going to look. 
82, Dunston #1 
83 Davidson #6
84 Drew Hall #3  (Greg Maddux #31)
86 Derrick May #9
87 Mike Harkey #4
88 Ty Griffin #9
89 Earl Cunningham #8
91 Doug Glanville #12
92 Derrek Wallace #11
93 Brooks Kieschnick #10
95 Kerry Wood #4
97 Jon Garland #10
98 Corey Patterson #3
00 Luis Montanez #3
01 Mark Prior #2
03 Ryan Harvey #6
06 Tyler Colvin #13
07 Josh vitters #3
11 Javier Baez #9
12 Albert Almora #6

Wow, that's pretty awesome.  14 top-ten picks in 30 years, and a pretty awesome list of very high or top-half picks that didn't do much.  HOpefully the scouting and training and health care and luck will all be a lot better now and future.  Eight top-4 picks over 30 years, and a 9th coming up next year, with Dunston, Wood, and Prior being the most elite (and durable?) that we produced.  Wow. 
« Last Edit: December 03, 2012, 01:29:37 pm by craig »

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8857
Re: Cubs in '12
« Reply #10148 on: December 03, 2012, 02:09:17 pm »
DKnobler ‏@DKnobler
More broadcasting news: Jim Deshaies leaving Astros TV to replace Bob Brenly on Cubs TV (Brenly went to Arizona)

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26959
Re: Cubs in '12
« Reply #10149 on: December 03, 2012, 02:10:44 pm »
Ron beat me, I was about to post the same tweet.  What we've heard about Jim Deshaies sounds good, though.

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 29618
Re: Cubs in '12
« Reply #10150 on: December 03, 2012, 02:14:49 pm »
JR.  My purple comment was for br to read MY comments that way.  Moran.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8857
Re: Cubs in '12
« Reply #10151 on: December 03, 2012, 02:16:08 pm »
I guess we'll see about Deshaies (damn, gotta learn how to spell his name now).  I'm disappointed just because he is an unknown to me.  I would have been very pleased with Karras and had a pretty good feeling about a couple of the others.  But he comes with a very good reputation.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14445
Re: Cubs in '12
« Reply #10152 on: December 03, 2012, 02:31:27 pm »
The Jim Deshaies broadcast team finished 4th in the Fangraphs poll of best TV announce teams.  Hopefully it turns out to be a good hire. 

I was surprised, at the completion our offseason crowdsourcing project, to find that FanGraphs readers had ranked Houston Astros broadcasters Bill Brown and Jim Deshaies fourth overall among the…
NotGraphs Baseball · fangraphs.com

guest61

  • Guest
Re: Cubs in '12
« Reply #10153 on: December 03, 2012, 02:32:00 pm »
You need to learn how to spell Eric Karros properly too.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14445
Re: Cubs in '12
« Reply #10154 on: December 03, 2012, 02:32:42 pm »
4. Houston Astros
Broadcasters: Bill Brown and Jim Deshaies
Ratings (Charisma/Analysis/Overall): 4.3, 4.1, 4.2

Three Reader Comments
• “FanGraphs and other analytical blogs have been mentioned on the broadcast before. While the team may suck the Houston fan base is lucky to have such a good broadcasting crew to get through the season.”
• “We, as Astros fans, are lucky to have these guys. They can be quite funny and informative at times. Maybe not the sharpest at play by play, but very entertaining.”
• “They are the only reason I will watch the Astros lose over 100 games again this coming season.”

Notes
There won’t have been any particularly compelling reasons for non-fans to have sought out Astro games of late, so the reader is excused if he hasn’t seen this broadcast team at work. Note, however, that the comments for Brown and (especially) Deshaies are almost uniformly gushing.


I was surprised, at the completion our offseason crowdsourcing project, to find that FanGraphs readers had ranked Houston Astros broadcasters Bill Brown and Jim Deshaies fourth overall among the…
NotGraphs Baseball · fangraphs.com