Bleacher Bums Forum

Whatever adjustments Castro has made, his swing looks 1000 times better.  Granted, he still has trouble recognizing the slider down and away.  But he's got me trying to decide whether he is permanently fixed offensively or whether this is just a phase where he's seeing a lot of good hitter's pitches.  His low BB rate is not much of a concern when he's batting over .400 as he has over the past month.  But in the long run, it's still an issue.  I think I'm leaning towards using this hot streak as leverage in trading him during the offseason.  Let Baez start at 2B and Bryant at 3B for the most part next season.  La Stella can be the versatile infield sub.

Castro is a mystery. Current thing is not new. Batted .378 last August. Before that, had very poor 2013 season. Bounced back. Bouncing back again now. Can he be poor again? Yes. Will he bounce back again? Yes, probably.

Still 26 for 2016, so likely will be a club out there looking at glass half-full on him. Guessing Theo will take opportunity to move him. Or, maybe Castro will be World Series hero soon and how dare you trade him. Beats me.

Regarding Wood, think the $6 leverage he has might be conducive to an extension. But, depends on his expectations for future role. Does he want to start? If so, he's not going to take middle relief money and abort his pending free agency by agreeing to middle relief money beyond 2016.

Think he has 2016 value for Cubs and guessing will be tendered. Not a lock by any means.

I'm really pretty turned off on going after any of the big name starters this offseason except maybe Price.  Zimmermann is having his worst year in five years, and he's getting far enough from TJ surgery that it could become an issue again.  Cueto has been bad since going to the Royals, and there is concern he might be pitching through an injury.  Samardzija has been bad all year.  Greinke has pitched so well this year that his price is going to skyrocket, and there's no way he'll ever live up to it. 

So that just leaves Price.  With the other options looking much less appealing than they did 6 months ago (and with the Yankees, Red Sox, and Dodgers all likely to be in the starting pitching market), I think the bidding war for him is going to go beyond what the Cubs will pay.  I think they'll still be focused on a trade for a cost-controlled younger starter this offseason, even though it's going to cost a ton in a trade.  Hopefully Baez has shown enough in the minors and in September that he can be a key part of a deal.

I also expect a high OBP leadoff type will be added in CF or at 2B.  And I think it's more likely than not that both positions will be filled with players currently not contracted by the Cubs for next year.  They'll try on Fowler (but may settle on Span or a trade).  If they get their leadoff type in CF, Kendrick is an option at 2B (his name came up at midseason as a free agent target for the Cubs).  If not, it could be Zobrist. 

CF is more valuable on defensive spectrum than 3B. But, hard to believe that, even if moved to CF as a regular, Bryant would play there very long. Would lose 3B skills in year or two and end up as corner OFer too soon and doubt Cubs want that given how solid he is playing at 3B. Think long-term.

Pete Rose is a great example of that.  He started out as a middle infielder, and then moved to the outfield, mostly corner outfield, for 6 years.  Totally lost his third base skills.  He had to fake it for many years after they moved him to third base.  Everyone that saw him there marvelled at how he could play third base after losing all his skills. 

Must have just been faking it.

LMAO!!!!! EPIC!

Pete Rose is a great example of that.  He started out as a middle infielder, and then moved to the outfield, mostly corner outfield, for 6 years.  Totally lost his third base skills.  He had to fake it for many years after they moved him to third base.  Everyone that saw him there marvelled at how he could play third base after losing all his skills. 

Must have just been faking it.

Dave- Let us take a stab at accuracy. The "everyone" folks who "marvelled at how he could play third base" were either drinking buddies of Rose or folks with a vested interest in keeping Rose happy.

Rose was a very poor defensive 3B when he played there from 1975 to 1978.  Moving him there was a move entirely based on offense.  As one example, just look at Baseball Reference defensive runs saved for that period.  Rose was 33 runs below average cumulatively those four years---one of the worst 3B numbers in the majors at that time. Rose himself acknowledged in retirement that he wasn't the greatest 3B--which for him is saying something.  Best thing he could say was that he worked very hard there, which I'm sure is true.

And, there is the historical context why he was playing 3B in the first place, which is interesting. What happened was that Reds had to figure out a way of getting George Foster's bat in the lineup everyday.  Rose had been in LF--where he belonged. But, Foster was turning into a monster bat and could only play LF. Playing 1B was future Hall-of-Famer Tony Perez.  RF was Griffey. So, the only choices for Reds were either to turn Rose into a part-timer (!!), trade him (!!!), or put him at 3B. That's why Rose played 3B in the first place. It was the ONLY practical option.

So, what you are alleging as everybody thought he was wonderful at 3B is hogwash.  Naturally, Sparky had to pat Rose on the back about how terrific he was playing--this is PETE ROSE we're talking about-- but any objective analyst knew he was poor defensively.  He was a LFer or a 1B de facto at that time of his career. When he finally left Reds, he played 1B in Philly (badly).

Finally, aside from the inaccuracy of your post, it is always interesting that whenever anybody tries to come up with (alleged) examples contrary to defensive spectrum notions, it typically is a Hall of Famer rather than a mere mortal.  By definition, HOFers tend to have very atypical gifts.  They are outliers.  So, even if Rose was a contra example--which he is NOT--it would be the example of an outlier.  Put another way, it just proves the point if only outliers are the (alleged) examples.

In any case, you just gave an example of exactly why the spectrum principles are sound.   

As usual, you ignore the point of the post and argue peripherals.  Rose did NOT lose whatever skills he had as an infielder after playing a couple of years in the outfield.  NO ONE loses their skills at playing infield after a couple of years in the outfield.  To argue that is foolish.  Even if they were a little rusty, it could easily be refreshed in a month of spring training.

You completely ignore Epstein's comments that the good thing about drafting infielders is that they can play anywhere on the field.  What sense would there be in that if you are NEVER going to play them anywhere on the field.

It goes back to the discussion that we has several months ago.  IF the Cubs wanted to play BOTH Olt and Bryant at the same time, and IF one had to be at third base and the other at left field, only an idiot would play Bryant at third and Olt in left field if that would be weaker defensively than the other way around.

Quite simply put, NO infielder in his early 20s is going to lose his infielding skills by playing the outfield for a couple of years.  Barring injury, it just wouldn't happen.  Nor would he lose trade value, since every GM in the country would realize that they could play him in the infield if they acquired him.