Author Topic: Cubs in '12  (Read 203225 times)

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26959
Re: Cubs in '12
« Reply #3165 on: January 09, 2012, 01:42:00 pm »
Assuming Maholm is signed, this rotation reminds me somewhat of the division-winning 2007 rotation of Zambrano, Lilly, Hill, Marquis, and Marshall. 

- Both have a guy with ace level talent and at least one recent year of ace level performance (Zambrano & Garza)
- Both have a LH free agent signing who is viewed by most as a #3 at best/back end guy, but has actually performed as a solid #3 (Lilly & Maholm)
- Both have a young LH who has shown flashes but isn't quite established in the majors (Hill & Wood)
- Both have a late 20s RH inning eater coming off by far his worst year (Marquis & Wells)

What's left?  Dempster (good #3 at least) vs. Marshall (who had serious durability issues as a starter); and Volstad vs. 2007 fill-ins (Wade Miller, Steve Trachsel, & Angel Guzman). 

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 29618
Re: Cubs in '12
« Reply #3166 on: January 09, 2012, 02:16:36 pm »
I'll make myself eligible for toast.   Wasn't Garza the #3 or #4 pitcher on the Rays' staff?  If so, it kind of gives us an overall view of what to expect this year in comparison to teams with top staffs, ala Tampa, Philadelphia, Texas, Angels, San Francisco.

Yes, yes, I know, Garza's peripherals are better than that.  I just don't see him matching up with other teams #1's with this lineup behind him that often.

This is not a criticism of Theocracy.  Nor is it a negative about this season.  I'm actually getting excited about seeing which of these players will emerge as genuine finds.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2156
Re: Cubs in '12
« Reply #3167 on: January 09, 2012, 02:33:35 pm »
The starting 1st baseman is Bryan Lahair, the starting 2cd baseman is Darwin Barney, and the starting 3rd baseman is Ian Stewart.

How is that being as competitive as possible?
« Last Edit: January 09, 2012, 02:37:26 pm by bitterman »

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 29618
Re: Cubs in '12
« Reply #3168 on: January 09, 2012, 02:48:40 pm »
Because the alternative is having Jake Fox at 1b, Neifi Perez at 2b, and Lenny Harris at 3b.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26959
Re: Cubs in '12
« Reply #3169 on: January 09, 2012, 02:52:08 pm »
Garza was probably considered #1 or #2 on the Rays staff when he was there.  Granted, Shields and Price have taken big steps forward since then, so he'd probably be #3 now. 

But Garza did take a legitimate big step forward last year.  He was one of the best 10-15 pitchers in the game.  He's not on the true very top tier (like Halladay, Verlander, Hernandez, Sabathia, and Lee)...but if he maintains what he did last year, he matches up fine with the second tier aces like Lincecum, Lester, Shields, Hamels, etc. 

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2156
Re: Cubs in '12
« Reply #3170 on: January 09, 2012, 03:01:06 pm »
Can someone explain why Hoyer thinks he was wrong in calling up Rizzo last year?  In 356 ABs, he had 101 RBIs.  That seems like a reasonable cause to call someone up.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4025
Re: Cubs in '12
« Reply #3171 on: January 09, 2012, 03:04:19 pm »
Can someone explain why Hoyer thinks he was wrong in calling up Rizzo last year?  In 356 ABs, he had 101 RBIs.  That seems like a reasonable cause to call someone up.

Hoyer was desperate for first base production in San Diego and pushed Anthony Rizzo to the Majors earlier than he should have been at age 21.  He probably wasn't mature enough to handle it physically and/or mentally.

It certainly showed in Rizzo's numbers at the plate.

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 29618
Re: Cubs in '12
« Reply #3172 on: January 09, 2012, 03:08:16 pm »
Just checked...Garza was considered either 2 or 3, depending on how you felt about Price.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2156
Re: Cubs in '12
« Reply #3173 on: January 09, 2012, 03:11:05 pm »
But his production at the AAA was outstanding.  I don't see the call up as a mistake, regardless of his production at the major league level.  It's not as though he called him up after 50 ABs at AAA.  When all was said and done, he still had around 20 more RBI's than anyone else on his team at the end of the AAA season, w/ 100+ fewer ABs.

I don't agree that you can label that callup as a mistake.  It sounds like someone is trying to obscure the fact that Rizzo wasn't good at the major league level and that's squarely on Rizzo .. however .. he was 21 and it was his first go around ... so who really cares?

My point is, his stats warranted a call up.  Just b/c he failed, doesn't mean it was a mistake to call him up.  Maybe the mistake was KEEPING him in the majors, after he was struggling, but that's debatable.  It's akin to my last relationship.  It was w/ someone who was REALLY thoughtful and kind and such at the beginning, but toward the middle and end she inexplicably changed into someone who was selfish, self-centered and empathetic only for herself.  It wasn't a mistake to be with her, it was mistake to stay around her after the facts had changed. 
« Last Edit: January 09, 2012, 03:21:46 pm by bitterman »

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16442
Re: Cubs in '12
« Reply #3174 on: January 09, 2012, 03:24:39 pm »
Whether or not someone is ready for a call up depends upon much more than his AAA success.  It is possible to have good stats in the minors in spite of the fact that you have flaws in your game that can not be taken advantage of by most minor league pitchers, but CAN be exploited by most major league pitchers.  Hoyer seems to be saying that he knew Rizzo had flaws, but decided to risk bringing him up anyway.

The reason why there are several levels of minor leagues is because it gives a player a chance to work on his flaws without being totally overwhelmed by those more advanced than he.

All Hoyer is saying is that he knew that he knew Rizzo was not ready in spite of his stats.  Merely quoting those stats as proof that he WAS ready is more of an indication of OUR ignorance,  than of Hoyer's.

If that were not true, then there would be absolutely no doubt that LaHair will become a great major league hitter.

Cactus

  • Guest
Re: Cubs in '12
« Reply #3175 on: January 09, 2012, 05:46:40 pm »
David Kaplan says the Cubs are "down the road" on a Garza to the Tigers deal.

Home Page
chsn · csnchicago.com

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16248
Re: Cubs in '12
« Reply #3176 on: January 09, 2012, 06:09:28 pm »
1.  I don't agree with tico in evaluating this (with Garza and Maholm) as a very solid better-than-average rotation.  tico has Garza as a 1.5, Dempster as a 2.5, and Wood/Volstad/Wells/Maholm all as 3.5 starters.  If you add up those numbers, it averages out to 2.9.  Right around average, just a shade better than average. 

It could work out that way.  But a roughly average staff is  average. And I think it's kind of optimistic to be expecting all those guys to be 3.5's.  I think the vast majority of teams figure that their 4th and 5th starters have a chance to be 3's if things go right.  But a lot of the bad 5's in the league are would-be 3's who aren't pitching that well, due to injury or slump or whatever.  Low-stuff starters like Wood/Volstad/Wells/Maholm don't have the same margin for error that healthy Wood or Zambrano had.  There is a fair chance that one of them will be given a rotation job but will pitch like a 5. 

2.  Another factor, of course, is the defense.  br has noted that most of the Cub starters were victims of poor defense.  While that may improve to some degree, I'm not expecting some radical upgrade in defense.  Soto is still Soto.  Castro might improve, but he's still Castro.  Byrd isn't likely to get a lot better.  WE'll upgrade significantly at 3B, but much of that will be negated by downgrading at 1B.  Overall I think the infield defense might be only modestly upgraded.   Outfield might be different, but that depends on what Hoyer does in left. At present it's still Alf.

3.  One other thought on pitchers and ground-ball contact guys.  We tend to look at ERA's and FIP-ERA's and the like.  But a team goal is overall run reduction, not just earned run reduction.  Isn't it true that contact pitchers and ground-ball pitchers give up a significant number of extra unearned runs over the course of a year?  If you throw 200 innings and K 100 guys versus 200, of course those extra 100 outs you're expecting the fielders to make are going to involve some errors.  Your run prevention is going to be better if you K 100 guys rather than expecting Castro-to-LaHair to get those same 100 outs.  It's also true that fly balls are less likely to be dropped than ground balls.  Groundball contact pitchers naturally are going to source more errors and more unearned runs.   

I disagree. Dempster is a -2/+3 starter. Wood, Volstad, Wells (and if added, Maholm) are -3/+4 starters. May not seem like much, but I think it's significant.

We may not matchup well against some teams' 1 and 2 guys, but I'm pretty confident that 3-5 we'll be much better than most teams. It's sexy to have that ace pitcher, but you can't pitch your ace every day. Scrubs have to make starts, too, and when another team is starting a scrub and we have someone much closer to league average going, that's a significant advantage.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2132
Re: Cubs in '12
« Reply #3177 on: January 09, 2012, 06:42:16 pm »
I miss the days of the Cubs pitchers annually being atop the league lead in strike outs.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14445
Re: Cubs in '12
« Reply #3178 on: January 09, 2012, 06:49:33 pm »
David Kaplan says the Cubs are "down the road" on a Garza to the Tigers deal.

http://www.csnchicago.com/blog/cubs-talk/post/Tigers-Cubs-talking-Garza-trade?blockID=627864&feedID=661&awid=7288418372288267684-914

Just wondering, how many rumors has Kaplan been right on this offseason so far? 

Seems like Kaplan's record is down there with Phil Rogers.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14445
Re: Cubs in '12
« Reply #3179 on: January 09, 2012, 07:01:05 pm »
Speaking of Rogers, when's that Marlon Byrd for Matt Harrison trade finally going to happen?