Bleacher Bums Forum
General Category => Archives => Topic started by: mO on September 29, 2011, 10:14:39 am
-
We've heard Bourn has been on the Cubs' backburner all offseason...I wonder if they might push to get something done this week with the convention coming up this weekend.
-
Spring Training invitee report
Astros instrucional league report
A surprising power arm closed out the game for the Astros, righty Dayan Diaz. The 23-year-old Colombian got ground balls and strikeouts in Lo-A Lexington this season but minor league relievers old for the level have a steep developmental hill to climb. Diaz threw an explosive two-seam fastball with plus life that sat 94-96 and hit 97, backing it up with an 82 mph curveball that he only threw once, but was easily above average and showed plus potential with sharp depth and 11-to-5 tilt.
Diaz is listed at 5’10, 156 pounds and didn’t look much bigger than that. He also has a longer arc to his arm action with a slight stab and a high effort delivery with some herky-jerky in it. Diaz generates the life with his three-quarters slot and takes and angle toward the right-handed batter’s box that, along with the run on his heater, helps give righties fits. While there are clear prospect downsides with age, effort in the delivery and the vagaries of projecting relievers, Diaz showed me late inning upside and is a guy to watch in 2013.
I posted this a couple of days ago.
-
Diaz actually has a pretty impressive record. http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=diaz--001day except for what appears to have been an injury in 2009 causing him to be somewhat less than young for his league.
2008 at 18 in Venezuela, and a WHIP of .966 in 48 innings; out entirely in 2009; 1 inning in 2010; then 2011 an ERA of 1.98 in 50 innings in low A at age 22; in 2012 an ERA of 1.85 in 58 innings in A ball.
-
Never heard of him.
I hadn't either until today. He's a minor league free agent we signed this offseason. Most recently pitched in Houston's organization.
-
It ain't gonna get much faster and harder.
I was telling my wife the exact same thing last night....
-
Mechanics...too much extraneous movement/motion in one's delivery (or swing, for that matter) leaves more room for a breakdown in mechanics, which can of course lead to slumps and/or injuries...
-
All of those plus
5. Ceiling. It ain't gonna get much faster and harder.
-
He's just 5-foot-10 and has a ton of effort in his delivery, but he does have a 93-98 mph fastball.
This is kind of a dumb or embarrassing question, but I'll ask it anyway. Scouts often comment on the amount of effort in a delivery. I know having a ton of effort is viewed as undesirable.
But what why is that a problem, actually? Is it:
1. Injury? A high effort guy is more likely to blow out his arm?
2. Tiring? A high-effort starter is going to be exhausted by the 5th inning, and won't be throwing as hard?
3. Fastball deception? With easy heat, a hitter can't time the fastball velocity as well?
4. Offspeed deception? If a guy needs a max-effort delivery to hit 95, he has a harder time throwing his curve or change with the same delivery?
-
Never heard of him.
-
Maybe a sleeper NRI to watch this spring . . .
I asked Matt if he had any particular favorites among the remaining free-agent crop. He didn't, though he did admit to being intrigued by righthander Dayan Diaz. He's just 5-foot-10 and has a ton of effort in his delivery, but he does have a 93-98 mph fastball.
-
49er QB Kaepernick: Cubs pitcher?
The Cubs were prepared to offer Kaepernick a signing bonus near $50,000 for what amounted to a summer job: He would have reported to the team’s complex in Mesa, Ariz., and thrown off mounds in the heat in June and July before returning to Nevada for two-a-days in August. (NCAA rules permit athletes to turn pro in one sport while preserving their amateur status in another.)
Kaepernick wasn’t interested. At all. He told Hughes that he planned to spend the summer in Reno, working with his wide receivers. And the decision was final.
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/49ers-qb-colin-kaepernick-drafted-by-chicago-cubs-in-2009-011313 (http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/49ers-qb-colin-kaepernick-drafted-by-chicago-cubs-in-2009-011313)
-
Good question, jes. In past I don't recall roster fillers. Usually guys were either top-20 prospects, or had been at one time, or had been fairly high draft picks. So I've guessed by invitation. I also recall Lemahieu seeming very uncomfortable and inarticulate; like it was the last thing in the world that he'd have volunteered for.
Thanks for Rosscup note, Cubsin. It was a rehab summer, so hopefully the not-healthy-enough-for-AFL doesn't mean any setbacks, just that they maybe figured rest was the best thing given his particular rehab status? And maybe the Convention spot was more recently, and combined with the original AFL spot does reflect some level of management interest?
-
Speaking of another guy, I'm kind of interested in Zach Rosscup. he's another guy who's pitched very little, in his case injury being a factor, but he may have some interesting stuff. 45K/17H/31 inning/1 HR this year. I wondered what he's got or if management is a little interested, because I heard he was one of the minor leaguers coming to the convention. Usually they don't bring in total roster-fillers who haven't produced much and aren't very interesting. So perhaps that reflects some interest?
Craig, they thought enough of Rosscup to put him on the AFL roster this winter, but he was replaced because he wasn't healthy at the end of his minor-league season.
-
How much of those attending the Cubs convention is a result of management picking and requiring attendance, and how much is it a result of players wanting to be there and essentially putting themselves on the list? Does anyone such as a Rosscup put himself on the list? If so, does management ever tell a player or prospect, "No. We don't want your sorry a$$ here?"
Take a Milton Bradley type, for instance. Could you imagine management wanting a loose cannon nutjob like that at the Cubs Convention? Or take Zambrano last year. If that deal had taken a bit longer, but Carlos had really wanted to attend, and he had not yet been traded, would management have told him to stay home?
-
Dave, thanks for the Diaz scouting report. Sounds pretty interesting. Rare to be able to have a guy with that type of arm available who's still only 23. Obviously a dinky guy with delivery/control problems who'll be 24 and has only one relief year in full season can't be a real hot prospect. But I'd think an action mid-90's fastball that touches 97 is intriguing, and while he hasn't proven it higher, his results at his low level were plenty good. Over last two seasons, 1 home run in 108 innings. I think I like anti-HR pitchers! 134K/67hits/108IP/1HR are some good numbers, although the 60 walks are not. Someday we're going to get lucky with one of these types of pickups.
Speaking of another guy, I'm kind of interested in Zach Rosscup. he's another guy who's pitched very little, in his case injury being a factor, but he may have some interesting stuff. 45K/17H/31 inning/1 HR this year. I wondered what he's got or if management is a little interested, because I heard he was one of the minor leaguers coming to the convention. Usually they don't bring in total roster-fillers who haven't produced much and aren't very interesting. So perhaps that reflects some interest?
-
The Rodrigo Lopez era is over. He has signed with the Phillies.
-
Sounds a little like Juan Cruz
-
Spring Training invitee report
Astros instrucional league report
A surprising power arm closed out the game for the Astros, righty Dayan Diaz. The 23-year-old Colombian got ground balls and strikeouts in Lo-A Lexington this season but minor league relievers old for the level have a steep developmental hill to climb. Diaz threw an explosive two-seam fastball with plus life that sat 94-96 and hit 97, backing it up with an 82 mph curveball that he only threw once, but was easily above average and showed plus potential with sharp depth and 11-to-5 tilt.
Diaz is listed at 5’10, 156 pounds and didn’t look much bigger than that. He also has a longer arc to his arm action with a slight stab and a high effort delivery with some herky-jerky in it. Diaz generates the life with his three-quarters slot and takes and angle toward the right-handed batter’s box that, along with the run on his heater, helps give righties fits. While there are clear prospect downsides with age, effort in the delivery and the vagaries of projecting relievers, Diaz showed me late inning upside and is a guy to watch in 2013.
-
That aint saying much. He's [Valbuena] nothing but a bench player at most on a good team.
-
Valbuena is better than Ian Stewart.
-
I'm not sure that salary reflects any particularly high thinking. He was arb eligible, so that usually means a bump to around 7 figures or close to it even if you're a utility guy like Valbuena.
Theo's thinking of him is probably about the same as most around here. At worst he's a good backup defensive infielder with a little bit of offensive upside.
-
I still irrationally like Valbuena. He seems to do everything well except hit for average. Just hit .260-.270, and he's an under-the-radar productive supersub like Jose Hernandez was from about 1997-2002.
-
I like Valbuena quite a bit. Loved his glove...
-
The Cubs seem to be higher on Valbuena than most of us. Almost a million dollars a year isn't bad for someone picked up off the waiver wire.
-
Carrie Muskat @CarrieMuskat
#Cubs sign Luis Valbuena to $930,000 contract, avoid arbitration. Invite Brent Lillibridge, Darnell McDonald, Brian Bogusevic to ST
-
Keith Law's list of the top 25 major leaguers under 25 includes two Cubs: Castro at #8 (behind Trout, Harper, Heyward, Stanton, Strasburg, Kershaw, and Machado) and Rizzo at #18.
8. Starlin Castro
AVG .283 OBP .323 OPS .753 HR 14 SB 25 WAR 3.4
Current: Castro's bat speed and hand-eye coordination have produced very impressive results for a player who has yet to turn 23, walks about twice a month and is only an average runner. Castro's total of 529 hits through his age-22 season ranks 20th all-time, and he's played fewer games than any player ahead of him except Ted Williams (563 hits in nine fewer games). He's also improved himself to the point where he's playable at shortstop and might be forced off the position by another player, rather than forcing himself off of it through poor play.
Future: If Castro barely improves from here, he's still a valuable big leaguer because he can handle short and is likely to hit at least .300 with plenty of doubles power. I think he'll grow into 20-homer power in time, and while his walk rates are pretty low, he's not hopeless at the plate, giving me some reason to think he could add 15-20 walks a year in time.
18. Anthony Rizzo
AVG .285 OBP .342 OPS .805 HR 15 SB 3 WAR 2.2
Current: The Cubs acquired Rizzo for hard-throwing, constantly-injured Andrew Cashner before the 2012 season, and they helped Rizzo shorten his swing to allow him to make more contact, especially against lefties. The changes largely worked: Rizzo cut his strikeout rate dramatically versus his 2011 tenure with the Padres, even making more contact against southpaws.
He's a terrific defensive first baseman and has earned high marks for his makeup from all three of the organizations that have employed him.
Future: A full season for Rizzo in 2013 should see him hit close to 25 homers with an average in the high .200s along with that great defense at first. He's only moderately patient, although that might improve as he becomes more of a power threat. The biggest question is whether he can avoid becoming a platoon player: He raked against lefties in Triple-A last year but had just a .599 OPS against them in the majors, albeit with a .221 BABIP. Given his age and the speed with which he has made adjustments, I like his odds of figuring out southpaws.
-
http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/prospects/2013/01/brett-jacksons-strikeout-rate-reaches-historic-level/
And while the article emphasizes Jackson's high K rate, it didn't both to try to address the issue of improvement in K rates. Dave Duncan, the one player the article mentioned who had a higher K higher than Jackson in 100 or more AB, did that in his rookie season, improved considerably over his career. By age 26 Duncan's K's had fallen to a rate of 68 in 403 AB, or 16.8%, and over the course of his entire career his K rate was 23.4%.
No one has really even begun to contend that Jackson can succeed in the majors if he continues striking out at his current rate. The real question is whether he can bring it down and if so by how much.
Duncan -- the player the article mentioned because he was the only one with a K rate higher than Jackson -- did not have anything close to Jackson's eye at the plate, walking well less than half as many times as he K'd over his entire major league career, and yet he reduced his K's dramatically.
Is there anyone who doubts whether Jackson could succeed in the majors if he cut his K rate as much as Duncan did, getting it down into the 17-24% range?
-
http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/prospects/2013/01/brett-jacksons-strikeout-rate-reaches-historic-level/
-
Im gonna be real with you all when I say I dont want to get rid of Junior Lake yet. We've had high hopes for him for a while now and he's close to contributing. We're a rebuilding team anyway sorely lacking for position players and Rick Porcello aint nothing special.
-
Didn't the Tigers refuse to include Castellanos in a deal for Garza a year ago? Can't imagine they'd give him up for anything the Cubs would be willing to offer now.
I think we're probably just going to have to accept that Stewart/Valbuena will cover third base this year and hope for the best. There are no major league third baseman available. There are still rumors that the Indians would trade Asdrubal Cabrera for the right return if they want to slide a shortstop over to third...but it sounds like they'd have to be blown away. Texas doesn't seem likely to trade Olt for anything but a major hitter. The Indians don't really have any options other than Chisenhall at third themselves, the Padres don't seem to be in a hurry to trade Gyorko, and the Tigers don't seem to have a big enough need anywhere to trade Castellanos (and he probably isn't ready anyway). Unless the Porcello/Hardy 3-way deal would include Peralta coming to the Cubs, I don't think there's an improvement out there.
-
The twitter rumor was Wood, Lake to O's; Hardy to Det; Porcello to Cubs
-
I still see a hole at third.
-
So Curt, you'd like to trade Garza to Baltimore for Hardy. Then trade Hardy and Marmol to Detroit for Castellanos and Porcello? Or something with that core, and whatever additional prospects added to level the values? Might be fun, if our guys believe in Castellanos.
-
When dealing with Detroit, I'd rather talk Castellanos than Porcello, but that's just me.
-
It's kind of dopey to talk about Garza in trades, isn't it? Who wants to pay full price for a dude whose arm might be shot? And why should Hoyer talk about trading him for half price? It makes no sense.
I did think the Soto trade was interesting. When Brigham ended up unhealthy, the Cubs got Loux. I wonder whether there might be some conditional, contingency things with Garza discussions? Include PTBNL: If Garza is and stays healthy, pick from this "A" group. If he ends up hurt, get somebody from this "C" group? I think sounds too complicated.
-
OK, br, how about something like this:
O's: Garza in, Hardy and prospects out
Detroit: Hardy and Marmol in, Porcello and prospects out
Cubs: Garza and Marmol out, Porcello (adds a rotation-filler) and prospects in.
OK, pretty absurd. Both ridiculous number of prospects needed to level, and including Garza in any trade makes no sense.
-
This seems strange...Baltimore writer says the Cubs are trying to get Porcello from the Tigers, and they're trying to get the Orioles involved to send Hardy to Detroit. Doesn't really seem to make that much sense for anyone, but we'll see.
http://www.masnsports.com/school_of_roch/2013/01/sifting-through-more-rumors.html
Yeah, hard to see pieces fitting. Has Detroit done anything about their bullpen, and might they have some limited interest in Marmol if price is modest? I can imagine a call about Marmol; Cubs ask for Porcello Detroit says too much, but how about prospect X; Cubs say too little, no we don't like him. I could also see Detroit wanting to talk to Baltimore about Hardy, with Baltimore having some interest in Porcello but thinking he's way too little. But hard to see how all three could fit.
-
The Cubs/Tigers talked previously about Porcello and the Tigers wanted Barney. The Cubs said no. ABTY is mentioning the 3 teams don't fit well and would likely require a 4th team. Sounds like Porcello would be a piece, but not the main piece. If they just wanted Porcello it would be Cubs/Tigers trade.
-
Theo on the Cubs' current and future "core" players, from the Boston Globe.
Theo Epstein took the long-range view when he took over as president of the Cubs more than a year ago. He preferred an all-out gutting and rebuilding, as opposed to the Dodgers’ approach of buying up the best players.
Epstein, who will host his Hot Stove Cool Music round table Friday at Fenway Park, has surprised some people, however, not only by bidding for Anibal Sanchez but by signing Edwin Jackson to a four-year deal. Most people thought Epstein would hold off on big expenditures until the time was right.
Does it mean Epstein believes the Cubs aren’t as far off as he originally thought?
“We’re certainly farther along than we were last year at this time,” said Epstein. “When we got here, we identified one core player [Starlin Castro] and now we can look around and see Anthony Rizzo, Darwin Barney, Jeff Samardzija , and others. We do have more positional prospects than pitchers, so we felt Jackson will be with us for many years to come.”
Epstein is hoping his top prospects — namely outfielders Jorge Soler (a Cuban defector), Brett Jackson, and Albert Almora , shortstop Javier Baez , and pitcher Arodys Vizcaino — will all be in the majors together by 2015. First baseman Rizzo is already there.
http://bostonglobe.com/sports/2013/01/04/for-baseball-landmark-hall-fame-vote/v2hzoQYDfvIcDr1ZcmAwYJ/story.html
-
Yeah, and Porcello wouldn't even be an obvious choice as one of the Cubs' top 5 starting options.
The only way it would really make sense to me is if the Cubs were trying add a pitcher without damaging their current depth so they could trade one of their current starters.
Or maybe they've found a problem with Villanueva's medicals...his deal still isn't official.
-
Didn't Theo or Hoyer indicate that we're pretty much done with pitching this offseason?
-
This seems strange...Baltimore writer says the Cubs are trying to get Porcello from the Tigers, and they're trying to get the Orioles involved to send Hardy to Detroit. Doesn't really seem to make that much sense for anyone, but we'll see.
http://www.masnsports.com/school_of_roch/2013/01/sifting-through-more-rumors.html
-
I don't think there's any specified date when LaRoche, Bourn, Lohse or Soriano could sign without compensation to their former team, other than it's likely that none would receive a qualifying offer next winter if they sat out the 2013 season. If those are in fact the rules, they'd all be better off taking the best contract offer the can get for 2013, perhaps with the understanding that they'll be traded this year so they won't be subject to qualifying offers next year.
-
I have never heard of any time limit on the compensation pick, but who knows how detailed the labor agreement is. I know that an unsigned draft choice keeps going into the following year's draft, no matter how often he fails to sign. For instance, if Appel is drafted again this June and again fails to sign, he merely becomes eligible for the 2014 draft. I suppose that at some point the courts would intervene, but who knows when.
-
In the recent Boston radio interview, Theo followed his discussion about the value of the Cubs second round pick--under the new cba--with a discussion of when giving up a high pick might be worth doing depending on the value of the free agent (without mentioning any names of course).... Of course, Boras tends to pull a rabbit out of a hit at the last minute, so likely that the Bourn market does not bottom out all that much.
Assuming that the comp pick depresses Bourn's value by several million, how long would he have to wait before teams were no longer required to give up a comp pick for signing him? Might not it be worthwhile to Bourn and Boras to sit out the first couple of months of 2013 and perhaps sign in June if that would be when a FA could sign without a comp pick coming into the picture?
-
In the history of major league baseball, 2,101 players have compiled at least 2,500 PAs...and 2,100 have had a lower strikeout rates than Jackson had between AAA and MLB this year.... So if you really expect him to be better than fringe regular with no improvement, you're essentially saying that Jackson is good enough to do something that is literally unprecedented in modern MLB history. Sorry, but Jackson just isn't that strong of a prospect....
Maybe I'm wrong...maybe Jackson is a historic anomaly and he'll succeed despite his Ks. But it's doubtful, and the Cubs shouldn't count on it.
You are making an unfair comparison to look at career K rates against rookie year K rates, particularly in a rookie year when Cub management knew perfectly well that Jackson was not ready for the majors.
In the case of both Jackson and Vitters, the Cubs brought them up before they were ready in part in order to get them to buy into changes the Cubs wanted to make in their approaches. Show them that what they were doing would produce utter and total failure in the majors and a talented young prospect may become more receptive to changes, since he knows the old approach is not going to result in a major league career.
Mike Schmidt's K rate in his rookie season was 37%, and I seem to recall someone saying he had a decent career. If you add in his cup of coffee from the prior season his K rate was 38.6%. And in Schmidt's last season in the minor's his K rate there was 33.3%. Rob Deer had 81 K's in his first 186 AB.
To take a K rate during a rookie season which was more a management effort to subject him to total failure and compare that to career K rates of other players tells you nothing.
-
In the recent Boston radio interview, Theo followed his discussion about the value of the Cubs second round pick--under the new cba--with a discussion of when giving up a high pick might be worth doing depending on the value of the free agent (without mentioning any names of course).
My impression is that he might sign a guy like Bourn if the value was right for the Cubs.
Off-season timing is significant. Nationals were interested in Bourn at the beginning of the off-season but instead traded for a lesser player, Denard Span. Span, one year younger than Bourn, is kind of a similar offensive player--aside from the speed factor--and a lesser defensive player. Nats control Span for three seasons at about $20 total. But, Nats had to give up their top pitching prospect, Alex Meyer, who has more value than the second round pick Cubs would have to give up for Bourn. At the time that Nats traded for Span, Bourn's asking price was more than the 5/75 deal that Upton got from the Braves.
Seems likely that Bourn will end up getting less than $75. What if Cubs could sign him for the 4/52 Edwin Jackson deal? Is that the kind of value that Theo might think worth giving up the second round pick? Or, is Theo thinking three years tops, if that?
I don't see a problem with Bourn blocking B. Jackson. All the other current Cubs OFers, including the high and mid-level minors, are expendable. Don't see a problem finding two OF spots for the next few years. Indeed, if you can get sufficient offense, the more legit defensive CFers in the OF the better.
Of course, Boras tends to pull a rabbit out of a hit at the last minute, so likely that the Bourn market does not bottom out all that much. Even possible that Bourn returns to the Braves.
-
Bourn has established himself as basically a .350 OBP guy. Including poor numbers from early in his career doesn't paint an accurate picture of who he is now, and who he has been for the last 4 years.
I've really appreciated this discussion on Bourn, particularly the arguments that tico has made in favor of Bourn. I still would be very, very surprised if the Cubs sign him and give up a comp pick. Still, that certainly makes more sense after this discussion.
That said, Bourn only had one OBP significantly below .350 in his early career (.288), and the last 3 years, his OBP has been .341, .349 and .348. So his .340 career OBP isn't significantly reduced by his early years. I don't know whether the fact that Bourn's stolen base %age since his trade to Atlanta (76%) has been considerably lower than in prior seasons is something to be concerned about or not.
But if the Cubs should somehow sign Michael Bourn, he would certainly constitute an exciting addition.
-
Bourn has established himself as basically a .350 OBP guy. Including poor numbers from early in his career doesn't paint an accurate picture of who he is now, and who he has been for the last 4 years.
-
Nice discussion. Agree with br that Jackson can't be K'ing like he did last year and make it. And as JR suggested, the magnitude of his K-problem and the fact that he's had a K-problem since he left HS suggests that his K- and contact-challenges probably go beyond some tiny mechanical adjustment.
But I also agree with Dave that mechanical adjustments can be made, and that BA wouldn't still have him as high as #5 if there weren't some scouts who think he's salvageable as a good enough hitter to start.
There is a huge world in between having no K/contact-problem and having the magnitude of problems that he had last year. With coaching, there's a chance that he can limit the damage, and if so he can become a good starting player. The 28% K-rate that Dave and tico mentions is still very high, but it's a lot more livable than what he showed last year. So lets hope.
I do always wonder, though, if you can have a win-win-win solution, or if there will be a price. Win-win-win would reduce the K's, but with no reduction in HR-rate or walk-rate. Perhaps that might be possible, and addressing the drifting or seeing-the-ball problems will benefit HR's and walks while also reducing the K's. But a lot of times the price of reducing K's is cutting back on the swing which results in less power, or swinging earlier in the count which results in less walks. So if adjustments that reduce the K-rate to 28% also reduce the walk and HR-rates by 20% each, a 28%-K Jackson won't be OBP'ing at .350 after all. But hopefully some adjustments will be win-win-win. Perhaps the HR rate will rise if he's seeing the ball and driving the ball better, and if he becomes able to yank inside fastballs into the RF bleachers.
Fun to hope.
-
br, I was responding to your comment that: "Jackson may still work out, but he's a long shot to be more than a fringe regular/AAAA player at this point ....". I think the odds are a bit against him, but I wouldn't call him a long shot.
-
I don't know what numbers to crunch, nor how to crunch them.
Bourn has an OBA of 339 for his career. In a terrible year, Jackson had an OBA more than one hundred points higher than his BA, and has done close to that every year as a pro.
I agree that Jackson, if he makes it at all, will have enough power to play corner outfield. But that doesn't mean we want to waste his power on the corners, where power hitters are easier to come by. Jackson's greatest value, if he makes it at all, is that he supplies good power at a position where most teams lack good power. I would rather have better than average power in center than average power in left.
-
It may be that Jackson's ceiling is that of a AAAA/fringe regular as some have estimated.
Absolutely no one has said that. No one. Lack of blind optimism does not mean that I see his ceiling as that.
It may surprise some here, but I actually do like a lot about Jackson. He has a wide base of skills. He works the count and walks a lot. He hits for pretty good power. He plays good defense. He's almost the exact type of player I would like the Cubs to fill their team with. His ceiling is probably something like Bobby Abreu in his prime, who probably deserved some serious MVP consideration at some point during 1998-2004.
But more likely, he's not going to overcome the strikeouts. History tells us players just don't succeed when the strike out as much as he does, especially if they don't have elite power. To piggyback on my earlier post...even if you assume a 28% strikeout rate, the only semi-modern era players who have succeeded enough to get 2,500 PAs in the majors are Branyan, Reynolds, Bo Jackson, Cust, Deer, and Dunn. Six players--all with elite power--out of the 1,604 guys to collect 2,500 PAs since 1925. That's a 0.4% success rate. Maybe that's unfair since they've all played in the last 30-40 years...but even if you cut it to players after 1970, there are still 1,006 players who have had a lower K rate.
Jackson is going to have to get his strikeout rate down to around 25% to have a pretty good chance to be a long term regular. If he drops it into the 20%-22% range, he's a borderline star. But that's really, really unlikely.
-
All of the above is predicated on Jackson getting his strikeout rate down to about 28%. If he does, with his OBA will be higher than Bourn's
I agree that Jackson has TONS more power than Bourne. He has enough to make it work as a corner OF.
If you crunch the numbers, a 28% k-rate for Jackson translates to about a .350 OBP, which is right about where Bourn sits.
-
Since he has become a regular, only Brett Gardner has put up more defensive WAR in CF than Bourn.
Is it possible that Jackson is better? Sure. Is it likely? No, due to the speed difference between the two.
-
No, his defense isn't going to be better than Bourn's. Which is why I mentioned (offensive and defense combined) in most of my posts.
I think that Jackson has much more power than Bourn, which will make him a much, much better offensive player than Bourn.
All of the above is predicated on Jackson getting his strikeout rate down to about 28%. If he does, with his OBA will be higher than Bourn's and his power potiential, I believe, will make him a much better offensive player than Bourn, and will not be that much less of a defensive player.
It may be that Jackson's ceiling is that of a AAAA/fringe regular as some have estimated. I would be a little surprised if such a player would have been rated as the Cubs fifth best prospect if that was the common belief of the scouts and other baseball people that BA surveys.
-
Brett Jackson could very well be better defensively than Bourn right now.
-
If he can, his defense, power and on base skills will make him a better player than Bourne.
His defense isn't going to be bettern than Bourn's. IF he get's his K-rate to 28%, his on base skills will be about equal to Bourn's. His power will obviously surpass Bourn's.
-
In Bourn, you know pretty much what you are going to get. A somewhat above average center fielder (offense and defense combined).
Bourn is not "somewhat above average" for a CF. He is well above average offensively and defensively. He has consistently posted +4 WAR seasons and just came off a +6 WAR season, ranking 3rd in CF, behind Trout and McCutchen. Since 2009, only McCutchen has produced more WAR than Bourn (20.6 vs 20.1). Bourn is elite for a CF.
In Jackson, you might have a zero, or you might have a center fielder much much better than Bourn (offense and devense combined).
To be "much better than Bourn" you have to be Mike Trout. That's not going to happen. I completely understand the concern about Bourn's riskiness. If his legs go, what do you have left? Whatever risk he does pose does not diminish his current standing as one of the elite CF in baseball.
-
I don't dispute that if Jackson strikes out at a 32% rate, he will not be particularly good. The question is what are the odds that, with the improved coaching in the new administration, as opposed to almost no coaching under the old administration, he will be able to get his strike out rate down to about 28%. If he can, his defense, power and on base skills will make him a better player than Bourne.
What are the odds? I put them at 1 in 3. You put them substantially lower. We'll see how it works out.
-
In Bourn, you know pretty much what you are going to get. A somewhat above average center fielder (offense and defense combined). In Jackson, you might have a zero, or you might have a center fielder much much better than Bourn (offense and devense combined). But I disagree with BR on his assessment of the odds. I would say that right now, Jackson would be a better than a fringe regular with no improvement with his swing. And I would assess the odds at about one in three that he will be better than Bourn, however you rate Bourne.
Hypothetically, if Jackson ends up as better than a fringe regular, you'd expect him to get a few thousand PAs in his career. So let's just set the bar at 2,500 PAs--right around four seasons worth of full time play. In the history of major league baseball, 2,101 players have compiled at least 2,500 PAs...and 2,100 have had a lower strikeout rates than Jackson had between AAA and MLB this year. The only other player in major league history to compile that many PAs with a worse strikeout rate--Jake Stahl--retired about the time Babe Ruth was breaking in. He is completely irrelevant in evaluating Jackson's chances to succeed. So if you really expect him to be better than fringe regular with no improvement, you're essentially saying that Jackson is good enough to do something that is literally unprecedented in modern MLB history. Sorry, but Jackson just isn't that strong of a prospect.
Even if you assume he'll be able to maintain his career AAA strikeout rate (32.55%), only 3 of the 2,101 players have higher strikeout rates. The other two players? Russell Branyan (32.7%; fringe regular with elite power to offset his Ks) and Mark Reynolds (32.6%; decent regular with elite power to offset his strikeout rate). Having real success would still be virtually unprecedented.
Maybe I'm wrong...maybe Jackson is a historic anomaly and he'll succeed despite his Ks. But it's doubtful, and the Cubs shouldn't count on it.
-
In Bourn, you know pretty much what you are going to get. A somewhat above average center fielder (offense and defense combined). In Jackson, you might have a zero, or you might have a center fielder much much better than Bourn (offense and devense combined). But I disagree with BR on his assessment of the odds. I would say that right now, Jackson would be a better than a fringe regular with no improvement with his swing. And I would assess the odds at about one in three that he will be better than Bourn, however you rate Bourne.
-
It's funny, all those Hendry contracts got so much hassle. But it seems we've just started the Theo regime, and the bad contracts are almost gone. IIRC, the only Hendry contracts left are Marmol and Sori, and they'll tick off this October and next. Limits in the rebuild will be the absence of durable talent inherited, both majors and minors. But the budget books get cleared pretty fast. It's seemed like the Soriano contract was going to last forever, but now it's end is very much in sight.
We'll see how many of the Hoyer deals end up being good value.
-
An upbeat assessment of the Cubs:
http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20130105&content_id=40861448&vkey=news_chc&c_id=chc
-
I'm probably closer to br on Jackson's K issues than a lot of you guys. When you strike out in nearly 50% of your major league at bats, there's a whole lot of work that needs to be done there.
Not saying it's impossible, but when someone K's 50% of their AB, it seems like there are more problems than just mechanics. Hopefully they can work things out with him.
And of course even if they sign Bourn, there's nothing to stop the Cubs from putting Jackson in LF or RF if he turns out to be good enough.
-
...One last thought...if the Cubs did sign Bourn, I think it would be a sign that a trade of Soriano/Marmol/Garza should no longer be considered inevitable. I mean, I'm sure they'd still listen if someone wants to blow them away. And if the Cubs were dead in the water at the deadline, I'm sure they'd be shopped. But the team isn't going to sign two of the top 10 or so free agents on the board (plus a half dozen other guys), then still plan to tank in 2013 (especially once you consider that Bourn has a substantial risk factor that might limit their window to win with him as a significant piece). Getting Bourn would tell me that they intend to be competitive this year, and that they intend to go into the season with all the key players on the current roster.
Thanks, CBJ, tico, and br. I'm learning a lot, this is really helpful!
BR, I agree that if they do get Bourn, it's because they are trying to win, not tank. Which I think is consistent with what they've kind of alway said, and Hoyer mentioned in/after the Jackson press conference. "Every season is precious", or something like that, and that they want to win as much as they can short-term so long as it's not at the expense of the long-term.
I think Hoyer has mentioned wanting to get "value", and trying to add good value when it's available. Jackson and Sanchez were available this winter, and Theo/Hoyer evaluated them as good value and tried to sign both, who knows if equivalent perceived value would have been available next winter? Bourn is available now. If they evaluate him as good value now, (including the cost of the 2nd round pick), who knows if an equivalent value will be available later?
Seems to me that IF they do their analysis/projection and think that Bourn is a good value now and projects to remain so for the future, that it's entirely within their approach to try to sign him. The real question is IF they think he's good enough to be good value relative to the cost, pick included.
But it seems to me that procuring good value players is just the way to go. If you have players who are good value per dollar, you have assets. Whether for winning (or winning more) within a budget, or for trading.
I don't see Jackson as being a real show-stopper here, either. First, the odds that Jackson fixes his hitting are uncertain at best. Second, as nice as Jackson looked defensively, and he looked a lot better than DeJesus or Byrd or Campana, I doubt he's going to defend at Bourn's level. Third, good outfield defense plays in LF and RF too. So, suppose Jackson turns it around offensively, and truly is so good defensively that he'd be good even in center. If you move a guy who'd be good defensively as an every-day CFer, think how much defensive value he'd add in LF or RF? If Jackson is playing defense like a plus CF, and somehow fixes his contact issues so that he's hitting well, he's got plenty of HR power for either corner. It's not like Soriano, DeJesus, and Schierholtz are long-term building blocks. And if Jackson's CF defense is so good, and his hitting gets fixed, imagine what a trade value he'd be even if he was blocked by Bourn in center and Sori/DeJesus/Schierholtz in the corners?
Note, I'm not at all arguing the Cubs should sign Bourn. That depends totally on their evaluation of his past and present production, their projection of his future production, and the cost it would take. But IF they evaluate him favorably and he seems like a good value per cost, I don't think they'd hang up the phone on account of Jackson or because they're in tank mode.
-
I'm not giving up on Jackson...he's not in the same category as Vitters by any stretch. But he's no longer the type of guy who you plan to have for the next 5-10 years. And he's nowhere close to enough of a sure thing to keep the Cubs from signing a guy who was an All Star last year.
A lot of people here are still underestimating how big the strikeout problem is. It is virtually impossible for anyone to be an everyday player with a strikeout rate anywhere close to what Jackson's was between AAA and MLB last year. Dropping his K rate by 2-3 percentage points isn't close to enough for him. He's going to need to shave at least 10 points off what he did last year (35.6% in 609 PA between AAA and MLB) to be more than just filler. That is going to be difficult.
-
In my opinion, it's way too early to give up on Jackson. He has one hole vs. his otherwise strong attributes. The unanswered question is whether he can bring his strikeouts down to a reasonable level. I would imagine we'll know this season whether he can do that, and I wouldn't bet against him yet. If he does, I think he'll be a very solid major league outfielder -who would only be displaced by a star-quality player (along the lines of Almora or Soler).
-
br, I think you're being a little too negative vis-a-vis Jackson. There is still a pretty good chance that he will be able to reduce his K rate enough to be an above average ML CFer, IMO.
-
If Jackson is right, it's not unreasonable to suggest he'll be as valuable as, or more than Soriano. If they can find a taker for Fonzie, I'd love to see Jackson in LF with Bourn in center.
-
I think we're past the point where Jackson is going to be a roadblock if the Cubs have a chance to pick up a well above average major league center fielder. Jackson may still work out, but he's a long shot to be more than a fringe regular/AAAA player at this point, and the Cubs are going to treat him that way.
-
Jackson is definitely in play here, and I think the Cubs feel he will be the center fielder by midseason. That's why they won't go for Bourne. As for contention in 2013, they know as presently constituted, this is a 75 win team. Less if they trade Soriano and/or Garza.
-
His defense numbers are mostly based on range. Fangraphs' UZR comes from three components: ARM (arm runs above average), RngR (range runs above average), and ErrR (error runs above average). Here's what he looks like over the last four years in those areas:
ARM RngR ErrR UZR
2009 3.7 6.5 -0.2 9.9
2010 3.1 15.5 0.8 19.4
2011 -0.4 -5.7 -0.3 -6.4
2012 1.9 19.3 1.1 22.4
Of course, range is generally where defenders differentiate themselves. There's just not as much league-wide variation in the ARM and ErrR numbers (Bourn's ARM was tied for 4th out of the 20 qualified MLB CF in 2012, even though it seems fairly low). So I guess the short answer is yes, Bourn adds value with his arm...but defensive value is mostly gained with range.
On park effects, I'm not really sure how defense metrics are adjusted. To me, though, a smaller field is always going to make the defense better. I don't think they can really "waste" his range...it just gives them the opportunity to play Soriano and DeJesus (or Schierholtz) closer to the line. And that has its value too.
The thing that scares me the most about Bourn is the potential leg injury you mentioned. He is a guy with elite speed (which contributes to his elite defense), a pretty average hit tool, and nothing else. Sapping his speed would be devastating to his game. CUBluejays is right that speed players age a little better on average...but anecdotally, I mainly think of speed players as maintaining their level of play for a long time (Lofton, Henderson, Pierre) or losing their value completely (Soriano, Figgins, Crawford). There's definitely some substantial risk there.
One last thought...if the Cubs did sign Bourn, I think it would be a sign that a trade of Soriano/Marmol/Garza should no longer be considered inevitable. I mean, I'm sure they'd still listen if someone wants to blow them away. And if the Cubs were dead in the water at the deadline, I'm sure they'd be shopped. But the team isn't going to sign two of the top 10 or so free agents on the board (plus a half dozen other guys), then still plan to tank in 2013 (especially once you consider that Bourn has a substantial risk factor that might limit their window to win with him as a significant piece). Getting Bourn would tell me that they intend to be competitive this year, and that they intend to go into the season with all the key players on the current roster.
-
CBJ is right, believe it or not. Data shows that speedsters age better. The risk is that if your speedster is truly all legs, and the legs go, you have a problem.
Agree with br that fangraphs' WAR is preferable.
For what it's worth, if you like OPS+, I would reccomend using fangraphs' wRC+. It works just like OPS+ but accounts for the fact that OBP is more valuable than SLG. By wRC+, Bourn has been below league average on offense one of the last 4 years, league average one year, and above league verse 2 years. That's without counting his base running value. Neither OPS+ nor wRC+ account for baserunning.
Bourn is then a league average hitter from the CF position, a spot you normally expect to be WELL below average.
Then you factor in that he is one of the best defenders at his position and one of the best base runners in the game, and you understand how his WAR numbers are so good.
The FA market usually pays about $5 mil per WAR. It looks like Bourn is going to be a very good value based on that. I would have no problem giving up a comp pick for him. In my opinion, the only reason not to pursue Bourn is if the Cubs feel that Jackson is going to work out.
-
I think it was fangraphs and they found that speed players actually aged better than other players.
-
They should be looking at Jason Bourne, too. That guy is amazing.
-
Thanks very much, br, that's helpful. If I can further ask:
1. Is his defense all range, or is he a strong and accurate thrower as well?
2. For outfielders, how does WAR factor in park effects? All infields have the same size, but if you put Bourn in Wrigley, would that be "wasting" some of his WAR? Is it inherently harder to be 2.0 WAR playing half your games in Wrigley, because there is less discrimination? Or is that insignificant?
I totally get your wondering how reliable the defensive stats are. Great point, and that's probably central to Theo's decision-making. What defensive metrics are they using, what story do their own metrics tell, and how much do they actually trust their own evaluations?
I do wonder how "leg" dependent Bourn's defensive stats are in terms of risk. If he's hobbling like Soriano or yesterday's RGIII, he's not going to be an elite CF. But otherwise I'm not sure how much the normally subtle age-based slowing of 31-32-33 would reduce defensive value. Some for sure, but perhaps not all that much? Again, it would be fascinating to see the data and listen in to a discussion by Cubs management.
-
WAR likes Bourn so much because he is an elite defender and baserunner. He's a league average-ish hitter (OPS is a little below average, but his OBP is fairly good and that is the more important component), but his baserunning puts him above average on total offense. And his defense puts him way over the top.
Most stats people seem to like Fangraphs WAR better than Baseball Reference because it is a little more conservative on the defense and baserunning aspects. That said, I'm skeptical of any player whose WAR is based so heavily on defense and baserunning stats because those are so much less reliable than hitting stats. And Bourn's WAR is hugely based on that (some rounding here, but about 2 WAR in 2009, 3 WAR in 2010 and 2012, and 1 WAR in 2011). Baseball Reference tells roughly the same story (19 WAR combined over the last 4 years; about 8 WAR due to defense).
I wouldn't be excited about a Bourn contract...but even if WAR overrates his skills somewhat, there isn't any doubt that he's a truly elite defender and baserunner. And given that Wrigley has a relatively small outfield, almost nothing would fall in between the power alleys. Also, Wrigley has been good to LHH over the last few seasons, so it wouldn't be surprising to see Bourn improve a little on offense. If the front office is convinced his legs will not break down like Soriano's have, I would expect them to evaluate him as being a long term asset worth giving up a second round pick.
One more thought...if the Cubs signed Bourn for 4 years, he'd still only be 33 years old at the winter meetings after year #3. If he has held most of his value, he'll be tradeable for something at least as good as a second round pick at that point...especially if the Cubs could structure the deal so they pay a chunk of the total value as a signing bonus, like they did with Jackson.
-
I'd be shocked if the Cubs signed Bourn, because of the loss of a comp pick alone. I could imagine them doing something like that for a really outstanding player who would be a key part of the team's future, but that isn't Bourn.....
Bourn is coming off OPS+ of 99 and 85 the last two years, with a career OPS+ of 90 and a career OPS of .704, only two years over 100, and only one above 103. He has a 126K/4HR average, and has K'd 150 and 144 times in the last two years. Certainly wouldn't seem to be "really outstanding", or like he'd be a multi-year asset.
Yet WAR calculations paint a different picture. FanGraphs has calculated him to be 4.1 WAR or higher for each of the last four seasons (4.9-4.7-4.1-6.4). I've read somewhere that consistent 4-WAR players routinely get serious money? Or that some market study shows $5.75/WAR or something like that, I don't know.
For my own fun, I browsed some FanGraphs for other guys (last 4 years only). Bourn's 4-year WAR average is 5.0 (high 6.4). Matt Holliday's is 5.4, UPton 4.2 (high 6.4); Aram 3.7 (high 6.5); Garza 2.7 (high 4.9); Dempster 3.3 (high 3.7); Soriano 2.2 (high 4.0); DeJesus 2.6 (high 3.7); Ichiro 3.5 (high 5.4). Starlin CAstro has been 3.5 and 3.3; Barney 2.2 and 2.5. Over the last 3 years, Bourn's total 15.2 WAR beats Prince Fielder (3.3-5.4-4.9). Josh Hamilton: 1.4 8.4 4.1 4.4. Pujols: 9.0 7.5 5.0 3.9.
So, despite the OPS numbers, FanGraphs-calculated WAR thinks Bourn has been surprisingly valuable.
That's why I'm curious what smarter posters think, or what Theo might think. And why I'd love some feedback from more informed saber-familiar posters.
1. Are FanGraphs WAR any good? Or are these known to be seriously flawed?
2. Is there some fundamental factor which artificially inflates Bourn's WAR value, so that even if it's a good tool for a lot of players, it's not "working" for a guy with his unusual profile?
3. Do other advanced metrics give similar valuation, or is FanGraphs way abnormal on him?
4. If CARMEN agrees, might Theo classify Bourn as a multi-year building block asset?
5. If CARMEN agrees, might Theo view Bourn as undervalued?
I have no idea.
-
He follows it pretty closely, but it could be wrong. His numbers include 4 IFA, and the overage. I would guess most of the IFA are the $0-10,000 type. My guess is they will spend every dollar they can.
-
The CUBS have about $700,000 left.
As far as we know. However, that may not be the correct figure. My understanding is that each team can sign as many as five players with bonuses in the $10,001 to $50,000 range and unlimited players with bonuses in the $1 to $10,000 range that don't count against there pool. But the Cubs clearly couldn't fill the rosters of their Dominican and Venezualan League teams if De La Rosa and Paniagua were their only international signings. Some of those other signees might have received bonuses in excess of $50,000, but have not yet been announced. I don't believe that the Cubs will fail to spend somewhere between their $3.9 million pool and the most they can spend without incurring penalties (105% of $3.9 million, minus $1).
-
Cubans are outside the limit when they turn 23 with a certain amount of pro experience. Diaz will be 23 on 1/8. He is the more major league ready of the 2 Cubans this year and is supposed to have more upside than Alvarez, who is thought of as a 4th OF. Neither is in Soler's class. FYI a guy that posts on PSD/NSBB said that the Cubs were going to sign some former KC IFA signing for $450,000, but he was killed the day before he was going to sign in a bar fight. The CUBS have about $700,000 left.
-
....But with Cubans (and Japanese) as the only big exceptions to spending limits, I expect the Cubs to take advantage of any that come available from now on.
Thanks. I hadn't realized this was the case.
-
That joeyb guy is predicting that the Cubs are going to sign Diaz, the Cuban SS. H also mentioned that Cocneption might have played a role. FYI.
Interesting. BlueJay, do you know:
1. If he's under the international signing limit?
2. Fuji wasn't; what does it take to "escape" from being under the limit?
3. Assuming Diaz was, would he fall under the "last year" 2012 budget or the upcoming 2013 budget? When does the new cycle start?
4. Is he supposed to be a very major or advanced prospect? A full-season guy, or a start-in-short-season guy?
-
There are quite a number of Cubans in our prospect list, but except for Soler, there are no serious ones. (Top 30 or so). Concepcion was the only really big signing as far as money was concerned, and he has struggled since becoming a pro. Silva was signed for about a million, but doesn't seem to be a serious prospect, and Cabeza has been a bust. Del Valle looked interesting, but has hardly moved swiftly through the system.
I assume I have forgotten some, but so far, the Cubs have only been on the fringes of Cuban players until last year.
But with Cubans (and Japanese) as the only big exceptions to spending limits, I expect the Cubs to take advantage of any that come available from now on.
-
Nice to see so many Cuban signings in the prospect lists. I didn't realize we had so many. At this point is there any other system with as many Cuban prospects?
-
That joeyb guy is predicting that the Cubs are going to sign Diaz, the Cuban SS. H also mentioned that Cocneption might have played a role. FYI.
-
The Cubs drafted Dunston with the overall first pick. The Mets, picking later, chose Dwight Gooden. When asked why one scout said Dunston had a better arm.
-
I remember talking to a scout about why the Cubs didn't use Dunston as a part time reliever, even closer. His answer was pretty much as posted above, but he expanded on it a little.
To be a successful pitcher, you need to have very good control, which is really a full time job for just about every pitcher. No one could pitch once a week or so and expect to have the command necessary to get batters out. If someone was going to be a two way player, it would almost have to be a full time pitcher who was used for a batter or two in the field. This has been done over the years. The White Sox had Billy Pierce play first base for a play or two and then come back to pitch. I am sure that others have done it also over the years. Kieshnick is the only one I can think of that actually did both for a period of time, and I believe that lasted less than a year.
Still, the thought of Dunston throwing 200 MPH fastballs at guys still gets me excited.
-
So here's a totally off-the-wall, probably-won't-work, but-why-not-try-it-with-a-guy-whose-MLB-career-is-probably-over kind of idea: how about having him play LF in AAA while pitching out of the bullpen? He's always dominated LHH, even in 2010-2011 after he became a disaster overall as a major league pitcher. So what if he could play average or slightly better corner outfield defense, and could hit enough that you didn't mind having his bat in the lineup for the last three innings of a close game? Specifically, I'm thinking against a team like the Reds, where you would like to have a LOOGY face Choo, Votto, and Bruce. He slides to LF when anyone else is up, but stays in the game to pitch to all three guys for 1-2 AB each.
Of course, you have to have someone to play LF while he's pitching...that ultimately probably makes this plan unworkable because there's actually a good bit of lost value if Marmol or Fujikawa goes out to LF for a batter and gets hurt. Still, I've always felt a relief pitcher with a playable bat could be a very valuable piece to have because it essentially gives you a 26 man roster. I'm surprised no one has tried to do it since Kieschnick almost a decade ago.
I agree with you about the value of such a player, but it would actually be more than that. It would be the value of a 27 man roster, because with the option of using him as a viable position player you could replace him and bring him back to the mound more than once, effectively serving as two matchup relievers. And as such he would not need to "play average or slightly better corner outfield defense." A bit below average defense would be acceptable for such a player -- not wildly below average, but he could be a bit below average and still be a serious asset.
-
I would go a step further. If he doesn't seem to be making a come back as a pitcher, put him in left field for good, and see if he can make the transition like the Cardinal phenom did a few years ago.
-
One thing about Dontrelle...he has a career OPS of .665--11 points better than Darwin Barney's .654. And it's a small sample...but in his 123 PA since 2007, he has hit .307/.352/.525. He's almost definitely not a true .877 OPS hitter going forward...but it's possible his bat has improved to the point that he's a .725 OPS guy.
So here's a totally off-the-wall, probably-won't-work, but-why-not-try-it-with-a-guy-whose-MLB-career-is-probably-over kind of idea: how about having him play LF in AAA while pitching out of the bullpen? He's always dominated LHH, even in 2010-2011 after he became a disaster overall as a major league pitcher. So what if he could play average or slightly better corner outfield defense, and could hit enough that you didn't mind having his bat in the lineup for the last three innings of a close game? Specifically, I'm thinking against a team like the Reds, where you would like to have a LOOGY face Choo, Votto, and Bruce. He slides to LF when anyone else is up, but stays in the game to pitch to all three guys for 1-2 AB each.
Of course, you have to have someone to play LF while he's pitching...that ultimately probably makes this plan unworkable because there's actually a good bit of lost value if Marmol or Fujikawa goes out to LF for a batter and gets hurt. Still, I've always felt a relief pitcher with a playable bat could be a very valuable piece to have because it essentially gives you a 26 man roster. I'm surprised no one has tried to do it since Kieschnick almost a decade ago.
-
Perhaps Willis might contribute as a reliever? He's never really tried that.
-
I wonder what Dontrelle has, and how much of his recent failures have been mental versus physical? I know he was DL'd a couple of times with anxiety disorder issues. And he's had several other DL's, knee, finger, forearm. He's still only 30, so he's not too old to envision comeback, if his arm and mind were right.
Obviously he'd not have retired if both were right. But, baseball is a funny game and sometimes unlikely stories do work out.
-
It would make a very nice story if Dontrelle could somehow come back to pitch well again, and do so for the Cubs.
Almost as nice a story as when Banks cae out of retirement to lead the Cubs to post-season victory in the early '70's.... or when Santo rose from the grave to speak at his HOF induction ceremony.
-
Dontrelle Willis @D_Train35
@JonHeymanCBS Thanks For Gettin The Word Out There Jon, Tell Them Fans I'm Ready To Roll
Dontrelle Willis @D_Train35
Ive Been Workin Hard All Offseason Gettin My Spirit Back After A Couple Tough Years but Im Ready To Compete 100% In '13 N Be A Bulldog Again
Dontrelle Willis @D_Train35
Thanks For The Cubs Givin Me Another Opportunity To Keep Playin Ball...I'm Gonna Give It My All Hopefully Have Another Blessed Year
Dontrelle Willis @D_Train35
I'm Back...
It would make a very nice story if Dontrelle could somehow come back to pitch well again, and do so for the Cubs.
-
I'd be shocked if the Cubs signed Bourn, because of the loss of a comp pick alone. I could imagine them doing something like that for a really outstanding player who would be a key part of the team's future, but that isn't Bourn.
But it's something to talk about during a time when there is little else even rumored regarding the Cubs. Seems like most of the changes for next season have been accomplished early this winter.
The good news is that spring training isn't far off now, so that will provide some grist for discussion and debate.
-
Muskat doubts that the Cubs are going after Bourn:
http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20130104&content_id=40849506&vkey=news_chc&c_id=chc
-
Question: I have a general understanding that WAR is a pretty-all-encompassing offense-defense-baserunning-availability stat used by the best sabers, but I don't understand the details. I also understand that Bourn has had solid WAR most recent years (4-ish), including really good (6.5?) this past season. And I understand that on the market every WAR is worth some millions, so that his WAR might seem to justify a pretty strong contract.
Questions for Saber guys:
1. How much of Bourn's WAR is defense? Wrigley has a relatively small and contained CF; would he lose significant WAR in the smaller CF?
2. How much is base-stealing? His SB dipped some this year, which often happens into the 30's. Will he lose much if his SB volume/efficiency deteriorates a bit, or if Sveum doesn't elect to send him much? (Were the Cubs to acquire him?)
3. Do the sites indicate how much is just general, non-SB baserunning? I'm just curious how much differential Saber's calculate on baserunning... I'm assuming Bourn is one the elite end, but I have no idea how much WAR an elite guy can add, not counting the easily quantifiable SB/CS numbers.
4. Bourn was a 6.5 WAR this year, but his HR's jumped a bunch (9 HR, after not hitting that many in previous 3 years.) His walks also jumped, I think. How much WAR would he lose if he returned to 3 HR, or 50 walks instead of 70?
5. I like rate stats, but WAR is a volume stat. Bourn has been very durable and played every day for years. I'm wondering how projectable that is going forward. Particularly if he's an all-out rangy CF who'd have the speed to hit the walls often in Wrigley, and the speed to still be attempting 60+ SB per season. How safe is it to assume that a guy who plays his game is likely to remain anti-injury durable?
6. What is the typical $$/WAR ratio? If you signed Bourn for 4 years, and figured that he'd continue to average somewhere near his recently typical 4-WAR/year, how much would be "market" for four years and 12-15 WAR overall, if the guy was a slugger or a pitcher?
7. it's been mentioned that defensive WAR can be skewed by positioning, which may be amplifying Barney's already excellent defense. Is there any reason to think that Bourn's defensive WAR has been artificially amplified in some such way?
Given Hoyer's recent comment about trying to sign a player to a jackson-style deal, combined with rumors that the Cubs have been talking to Bourn, and combined with the absence of other available FA players who would seem to justify multi-year interest, it seems that Bourn really might be a guy Hoyer is pursuing. So I'm just struggling on how to evaluate the wisdom of doing so, or at what price range it would be a good "under-value" deal, versus a "pretty fair" versus an "overpay".
I'm also wondering whether, if they did get him and he produced at a 4-WAR rate, how far we might be from being a legit 80-win team if some health/performance things went right? Koolaid!
-
Jon Heyman @JonHeymanCBS
officially, d-train has an invite to #cubs minor-league camp. but if he is throwing well, he may get chances in big camp
Dontrelle had retired last July, by the way: http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/07/02/dontrelle-willis-is-considering-retirement/ (http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/07/02/dontrelle-willis-is-considering-retirement/). So big time comeback player of the year candidate, right?
I'd like to see the Cubs try to get Jair Jurrjens on the same type of deal.
-
I'm away from my laptop but it's on Rotoworld.
Good for Dontrelle. Hard to believe he's still only 30.
-
Link?
-
Ol' Dontrelle has come full circle.
-
Have you seen or scouted him? i guess we should ignore your opinions too
I believe I have offered no opinion of my own on Vogelbach in the OF, but merely pointed out that the Cubs seem to think he should be able to play there, and pointed out that they are the ones who would be in the best position to know.
-
Depth:
Jon Heyman @JonHeymanCBS
#cubs sign dontrelle willis to minor-league deal
-
Law has seen him multiple times.
-
If he had actually scouted him, and had those opinions, then it might make sense to consider them. If he has not, it makes no sense to give them any weight whatsoever.
Have you seen or scouted him? i guess we should ignore your opinions too
-
br, those are some pretty favorable ZIPS things. As always, they seem to be overly generous to prospects. Jackson and Vitters both .700+, with lots of HR's. Villanueva hasn't even gotten out of A, but they project him at .650+. I think if all of the minor leaguers who get anti-awful ZIPS were actually brought up, there'd be a whole lot who performed well below the predictions.
Agree, Yount and Hrbek are two very favorable comps. I actually liked their Barney one, Jose Lind. I lived in Pittsburgh for two years in Lind's prime, when he posted a couple of .300+ OBP seasons. He had great range and was a wizard defensively, and while Sandberg basically had tenure and won the GG every year in those days, it was Lind who eventually broke Ryne's 9-year grip. That seems a very apt analogy, although Barney probably has a little better hitting ability than Lind.
-
Do you have a link for the Cubs comments on Vogelbach in LF?
I dont recall seeing anything at all related to that, ever...
-
There's a significant difference between having a bat good enough to get you to the bigs, and having a bat good enough to hide awful defense at 1B or LF.
Quite true, and my understanding is that the Cubs do not believe his defense at either position would hold him back, that he would be good enough defensively that he would not be a defensive liability at either position.
-
Since we had this conversation this morning, I thought I'd ask Keith Law about Vogelbach today in his chat. He answered:
So there you have it. Rationalize it any way you want...you can believe that he's not qualified to make that judgment because he's not in the Cubs organization or because he hasn't seen Vogelbach personally many times if that makes you feel better. But that's a pretty strong statement from one of the top 3 or 4 national prospect evaluators (who is held in high enough regard by at least one MLB front office that he had an offer to be in charge of rebuilding their farm system several months ago, by the way).
Since we already knew Law's opinion of Vogelbach, a much more meaningful question might have been when he had last personally laid eyes on Vogelbach, how many times he has personally scouted him, how much he had watched Vogelbach at firstbase and how much he was watched him in the OF.
If he had actually scouted him, and had those opinions, then it might make sense to consider them. If he has not, it makes no sense to give them any weight whatsoever. Since those opinions are so directly at odds with the opinions of the folks with the Cubs who have spent a good deal of time personally scouting/observing Vogelbach and working with him and coaching him on a daily basis, I am inclined to believe that Law's opinion is based on things other than his own observation, and to the extent that it considers the input or opinion of others, I would bet they also have seen little to nothing of Vogelbach.
It also was interesting that in response to the direct question as to whether there is a scout, front office member, executive, or analyst anywhere in baseball that seriously thinks Dan Vogelbach could ever play anywhere but 1B or DH in the majors, Law did not answer it.
-
Cubs ZiPS projections for 2013:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/2013-zips-projections-chicago-cubs/
Interesting looking at some of the top comparable players, especially Castro (Robin Yount) and Rizzo (Kent Hrbek). I'd take those careers for Castro and Rizzo.
-
Quote
- As you can expect, saying that the two Scotts were pretty much flyers and Jackson is a “stabilizer.” He’s durable and came up too early. With his athleticism and age, he still has upside.
- “Can’t build it (a franchise) up in one year.” Edwin fit into our plans and was on the market now, so we got him.
- With length of the deal as the question about position players, he said the Cubs are looking at a position player with a ‘similar type of deal’ (As EJax (Michael Bourn?)).
- When asked directly about Bourn – “Can’t comment on individual free agents.” “Center field is a position both short term and long term that we’ll be looking to improve.”
- Said that they’re pretty much done adding pitching, now will focus on position players.
- Looking to mold after the A’s/Orioles and build while contending. Won’t look past any one year, but will focus on making moves that improve the future. Won’t make moves that hurt the future for 2013.
- Asked where he wants to see improvement – Wants to really draw out AB’s and see middle relievers in the 6th and 7th innings. That’s how you “really beat teams up.” Wants teams to feel like it’s a battle to face the Cubs.
- Asked how close prospects are too getting a look this year – “most talented minor leaguers won’t be read for a look.” “organization did a lot of talent over the course of the year.”
Thanks for passing along some of that stuff, br, multi-hand as it may be. All pretty interesting. That Baker and Feldman are "flyers" makes sense, and it also makes sense that as such they wouldn't have been guaranteed starting jobs. But both have a chance to create some value, for Cubs and themselves.
The big about being done with pitching is interesting.
Obviously the bit about looking at another player with a jackson-type situation is interesting. And would seem to be consistent with the Bourn rumor. Just turned 30, so like Jackson might still be having his best years. Like Jackson, could be a guy you could plan on being there, without being a monster contract. Not sure who else would make sense for multi-year position player and more than a flyer. So I take that fairly seriously as support for the plausibility of the Bourn rumor.
The bit about grinding AB's is also interesting. The personnel has changed some (Navarro; Schierholz; possibly Bourn, and neither Castillo nor Rizzo were up all year, possibly Sappelt....) But if they are going to become a "grinding AB's" team, I think that may require some coaching and pushing and some adjustments by carryover guys. (Like Castro and Barney.) With limited additions, and without either Schierholz or Sappelt profiling as major "grinders", if a significant increase in pitches taken and walks taken does occur, it may be more a function of culture and coaching than simply replacing low-patience guys with high-patience guys.
I also read a recap of an interview that Theo had with a Boston radio station on Wednesday. (http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/01/03/theo-epstein-speaks-organizational-changes-draft-pick-compensation-use-of-payroll-rizzo-jackson-more/) There was a question about "culture", and at the end of some comments Theo said that, as either quoted or paraphrased by Brett: "We got rid of a couple players who were causing some issues, and the clubhouse took a positive turn under Dale Sveum." Surprised he said even that much, I presume Zambrano was one and perhaps Aram the other guy in mind.
-
I listened to it live. I really don't know what to think. If they can get Bourn to a contract that they like, I think they would sign him. I don't know if they can though. He also talked about how the team is best in the future and while you don't give up on a season, you don't do anything to hurt the future either. If ABTY is to be believed the Cubs increased their offer to Bourn, but are behind the Mariners in either years/money or both. Bourn hasn't signed yet, so I think he is holding out hope that somebody is going to meet his price.
-
Cubs have re-signed Jaye Chapman and Zach Putnam to minor league contracts.
-
I'd rate Soriano's overall defense as about average in 2012. That represents a significant improvement over his performance in previous years.
-
Actually, due to his excellent, accurate arm, the metrics rate him as above average defensively every year except 2009. Not saying I perfectly buy that, but Soriano has always had decent range in LF, and his arm has had a huge impact in years past.
-
Even if Soriano was not a defensive liability in 2012, it is hard to say that he wasn't one in 2011, 2010 and 2009.
-
Keep in mind that creators of both Fangraphs' and Baseball Reference's defensive stats have said that exaggerated shifts can really throw off their metrics. Soriano was unquestionably better in 2012. But if you asked scouts, I doubt many would rate him as a good (or even above average) defender. I think the best you'd get is "a below average defender who was better than that in 2012".
-
He certainly wasn't a liability in LF in 2012. Fangraphs actually had him as the second best defensive LF in the majors in 2012.
-
Soriano is a defensive liability in LF,
Not actually true.
-
If Law is right about Vogelbach, the Cubs should put their effort into developing his defensive skills at 1B. It's concerning that Vogelbach's ceiling may be as a good DH.
-
There's a significant difference between having a bat good enough to get you to the bigs, and having a bat good enough to hide awful defense at 1B or LF.
By the way, don't forget about when Yonder Alonso and Todd Hundley were tried in LF. Those were completely embarrassing experiments, and that just goes to show you can't just stick anyone in LF. You guys keep bringing up Manny, but he didn't embarrass himself to that level.
I don't care if you do hit .300/30/100, a major league team isn't going to keep sticking you out in LF if they embarrass themselves like that.
-
On a different subject, interesting comments from Hoyer on SiriusXM this morning...at least they seem interesting through the second- and third-hand sources:
This morning, Hoyer was on MLBN Radio with Jim Memolo and Todd Hollandsworth, discussing a range of topics nicely summarized by BN’er Jacob here. A fair bit of it is what you’d expect to hear – and things we’ve heard before – but my ears (well, eyes, as I’m going off of the recap for now) perked up when the Cubs’ center field situation came up. Although Hoyer wouldn’t comment on Michael Bourn, specifically, he did say that the Cubs were looking to improve in center field in both the short term and long term, and commented that the Cubs were considering a position player on a similar length deal as Edwin Jackson (four years). There’s a fair bit of play there, and it all depends on *exactly* how he said it, but, given the current free agent market, he’d pretty much have to be talking about Bourn. Either Hoyer is fine with admitting that (I doubt it), or there was a little more nuance in what he said (speaking generally about positional free agents, maybe?). I’d love to hear an audio replay on this, but I haven’t been able to find one.
Speaking of the outfield, Hoyer spoke about how Nate Schierholtz fits into the mix, confirming what we’ve all expected: as things are formulated “right now,” Schierholtz will be playing primarily in right field, probably as part of a platoon. From there, it’s obvious that David DeJesus plays in center, and Alfonso Soriano plays in left. But, if the Cubs were to add a center fielder – I mean, Hoyer confirmed that the Cubs would like to add a center fielder in both the short term and long term – Schierholtz takes on more of a 4th outfielder role.
*OR* more likely, as I’ve been saying all along, the Cubs’ tentative plan has been to (1) add an undervalued player like Schierholtz and take advantage of platoons, (2) trade either Soriano or DeJesus (more likely Soriano), and (3) add a center fielder. Then you’ve got an outfield of Soriano or DeJesus in left, new guy in center, and Schierholtz platoon in right. It’s as effective, if not more so, than last year, and it might not be any more expensive. Throw in the fact that you just got younger and picked up an asset or two in trade, and it’s the perfect series of moves.
http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/01/03/jed-hoyer-speaks-free-agents-and-future-competitiveness-outfield-configuration-bourn-garza/
The messageboard recap referenced in the first line:
- As you can expect, saying that the two Scotts were pretty much flyers and Jackson is a “stabilizer.” He’s durable and came up too early. With his athleticism and age, he still has upside.
- “Can’t build it (a franchise) up in one year.” Edwin fit into our plans and was on the market now, so we got him.
- With length of the deal as the question about position players, he said the Cubs are looking at a position player with a ‘similar type of deal’ (As EJax (Michael Bourn?)).
- When asked directly about Bourn – “Can’t comment on individual free agents.” “Center field is a position both short term and long term that we’ll be looking to improve.”
- Said that they’re pretty much done adding pitching, now will focus on position players.
- Looking to mold after the A’s/Orioles and build while contending. Won’t look past any one year, but will focus on making moves that improve the future. Won’t make moves that hurt the future for 2013.
- Asked where he wants to see improvement – Wants to really draw out AB’s and see middle relievers in the 6th and 7th innings. That’s how you “really beat teams up.” Wants teams to feel like it’s a battle to face the Cubs.
- Asked how close prospects are too getting a look this year – “most talented minor leaguers won’t be read for a look.” “organization did a lot of talent over the course of the year.”
If anyone has a SiriusXM subscription and has a way to listen to an archived version of this, I'd like to know the tone of the whole exchange about CF/Bourn/similar contract to Jackson/still looking at position players. I wonder if he was actually hinting that something is in the works, or if he's talking more generically.
-
It is safe to say that if Vogelbach makes the majors he will do so because of his bat, not his base-running, his glove or his arm. All I have been trying to say is that if his bat is good enough to get him there, neither his glove nor his speed are going to prevent him from playing, even for Theo, and even in LF.
There's a significant difference between having a bat good enough to get you to the bigs, and having a bat good enough to hide awful defense at 1B or LF.
-
Since we had this conversation this morning, I thought I'd ask Keith Law about Vogelbach today in his chat. He answered:
Brian (Atlanta)
Is there a scout, front office member, executive, or analyst anywhere in baseball that seriously thinks Dan Vogelbach could ever play anywhere but 1B or DH in the majors? Because many Cubs fans expect a shift to LF is in his future, and that just seems silly.
Klaw (1:30 PM)
I don't even think he can play first. Any fan who thinks he can play left field is living in an alternate reality.
So there you have it. Rationalize it any way you want...you can believe that he's not qualified to make that judgment because he's not in the Cubs organization or because he hasn't seen Vogelbach personally many times if that makes you feel better. But that's a pretty strong statement from one of the top 3 or 4 national prospect evaluators (who is held in high enough regard by at least one MLB front office that he had an offer to be in charge of rebuilding their farm system several months ago, by the way).
-
Vogelbach's defensive skill at 1B is an important factor. If he's decent defensively at 1B and has middle-of-the-order ML offensive ability, he will be a valuable commodity.
-
Actually, both are very good arguments. The point being made is that if a player is a good enough hitter, Epstein is likely to find a place in the field for him.
If he doesn't turn out to be a good enough hitter, then he won't find a place for him.
When the standard for "good enough hitter" is Manny Ramirez and Miguel Cabrera, that should tell you something. Bellhorn's defense was fine for 2b. He's not a good example.
Put it this way: I'm not ruling out Vogelbach's ability to surprise just like I'm not ruling out my ability to win the lotto. Theoretically, anything is possible. That said, I'm also not dumping all my savings into Powerball tickets.
-
If Vogelbach has any brains, he is probably working out in the outfield shagging flies already. But as has been said before, there is no reason for the Cubs to be worrying about something that will not take place before late 2016 at the earliest. Some scouts have said that Vogelbach has the potential to be a .300+ , 30+HR, 100+ RBI hitter. If, at the time he is ready to come up, he is still considered to have that potential, they will find a way to get him in the lineup.
*If* he's going to hit .300/30HR, then he won't need to learn to play LF to get a job. If you can hit like that, and your first team has you blocked, somebody else will be happy to trade for you and give you a job.
-
If Vogelbach has any brains, he is probably working out in the outfield shagging flies already. But as has been said before, there is no reason for the Cubs to be worrying about something that will not take place before late 2016 at the earliest. Some scouts have said that Vogelbach has the potential to be a .300+ , 30+HR, 100+ RBI hitter. If, at the time he is ready to come up, he is still considered to have that potential, they will find a way to get him in the lineup.
-
The real question for me is at what point the Cubs actually TRY him in LF, or, even before that, begin actually working to teach him how to play LF.
I suspect that they will not even being working with him on OF play until after the 2013 season, and even then only if he is doing at the upper end of performance range at the plate.
My guess is that they want to have him do well at the plate in full season ball, without any additional distractions such as learning a new position, before they look at even starting instruction on OF play.
So best case scenario might be a strong early performance in Peoria (since I doubt he would look good enough in spring training to start in Daytona), and a mid-season promotion to Daytona, with a good performance there.
If that happens, I suspect they might start giving him some instruction on OF play at the vend of the 2013 season, or immediately afterward, with the possibility of getting him some actual work there in the Arizona Fall League, with a real look at him there in 2014 spring training and then perhaps splitting time there in the 2014 season, with the Cubs taking an extended look at him in the minors in LF in 2015 in AA or AAA. My guess is that the earliest a Cub manager will have any chance of deciding to use Vogelbach in a regular season game in the outfield would be September of 2015.... but it sure would be nice to have the sort of "problem" the Giants had with both McCovey and Cepeda on the roster at the same time.
-
As a fan of a team who hasn't often had much for middle-of-the-order hitting, it's hard for me not to be interested in a guy who has the makings of possibly becoming a good middle-of-the-order hitter. This summer Vogelbach had 1.000+ OPS, with .600+ slugging and .400+ OBP. My guess is that so long as he's producing at the .900+ OPS level in the minors, the fascination is going to continue, and fans like me are going to continue to talk/dream about ways to get him into the lineup. Discussion will continue as long as the production justifies, and will diminish if at some point performance no longer justifies the fascination.
-
Exactimundo. It's perhaps improbable that his defense will be close enough to average and his offense far enough above average to make it work. But it's possible. Maybe he will hit enough to make it work.
Soriano is a defensive liability in LF, yet he has hit well enough that the Theocracy has been willing to keep him, despite his salary. Yes, there apparently was some effort to move him this past summer, but also not such an aggressive effort for them to make it happen. Soriano had an OPS+ of 121 in 2012, if Vogelbach hits that well, the Theocracy will likely be happy to have him there, particularly given the salary difference. If he hits no better than the league average, he is not going to be getting playing time anywhere with the Cubs.
Has there been anyone other than a few Cubs fans who have suggested that Vogelbach stands a chance of playing LF at the major league level?
Yes. The folks with the Cubs who have worked with him and who have performed internal scouting on him. My understanding is they all believe he would be able to play LF in the majors without being a defensive liability. Soriano is a defensive liability in LF. Manny Ramirez was a defensive liability in LF. And they were defensive liabilities who cost a great deal.
Because everything I've read from the typical national prospect guys is that he's first base only.
And the typical national prospect guys are basing that on his height and weight and nothing more. Most would not have seen him in a single game, few would have seen him in any sort of physical drills to allow a meaningful judgement, and NONE would have seen him shag a single fly ball. In other words, they do not know what they are talking about.
If it was that easy to move a surprisingly athletic big guy to LF, the Tigers would have done it last year with Fielder or Cabrera...because Cabrera is pretty awful at third.
Vogelbach in LF isn't happening.
And Cabrera is Cabrera. and Fielder is Fielder. Each player is an individual, despite the fan desire to find comps and plug new players into earlier defined performance patterns. Size may be a factor in determining someone's potential performance, but it is a long way from the only one, and the others are going to be best known by those who work directly with him and who actually directly scout him... meaning Cub scouts and management.
If they start to say they believe Vogelbach simply can't play LF at the major league level, at a time when Rizzo's performance would appear to create a strong incentive to at least leave that option open, then I will have no reservations about agreeing with those saying Vogelbach should not be considered as a possible LFer. But my understanding is that has not happened,, and in fact Cub management believes Vogelbach could play LF.
Besides, even if LF for Vogelbach was more than just message board talk, Boise is still a long way from Chicago. There (is) a lot of time left before we even need to start discussing this.
I didn't know there was any time we NEED to start discussing this... but on a message board where folks here began discussing in late August which specific prospect the Cubs should draft in June of 2013, before the draft position was set or the Theocracy could evaluate 2013 performances on the field, it would not seem particularly premature.
-
And I can't remember where in Tennessee JR lives, but I guess this could be him talking to Callis:
Yep, that would indeed be JR talking to Callis.
-
Keith Law on Vogelbach, first from a chat right after he was drafted:
Josh (Tampa)
What is the deal with Vogelbach? Is he stuck at 1b or DH for life? I saw a few mocks with him going 30-40. That seems high for a guy with no glove...
Klaw (2:24 PM)
DH only. I mean, there's big, like Kevin Cron, and there's fat, like Vogelbach. That's just not a baseball body - he had to lose 30 pounds just to get back on the map this spring. But he can hit a baseball a long way.
And then from an interview on the View from the Bleachers Cubs blog at the end of the 2012 season:
Q: Some fans bring up Prince Fielder when talking about Dan Vogelbach’s chance to play first base. I’ve always thought of Fielder as pretty agile for a such big guy which makes him a unique case. Other than being fat guys who hit for a ton of power, are there any other similarities between the two? Is there any chance Vogelbach plays first base at the major league level?
Fielder’s a much better athlete than Vogelbach, even light on his feet considering his size, and Fielder’s not even a good first baseman. I can’t see Vogelbach playing any position but DH in the majors. He’s a one tool guy.
Kevin Goldstein doesn't come out and say he can't play LF, but he certainly doesn't sound optimistic about him doing anything other than hitting:
First Base: Dan Vogelbach, Cubs
A second-round pick last year who signed for first-round money with a $1.6 million bonus, Vogelbach drew some Prince Fielder comparisons during his high school career in Florida, both for his monstrous power, as well has his physique. At just six feet tall and somewhere around 250 pounds, Vogelbach is the definition of a bat-only prospect, as he's a 20 runner on the 20-80 scouting scale and a poor defender. While it's early, he's hit .432/.368/.773 in 10 Arizona League games, and he wouldn't have gotten that kind of bonus without scouts believing that the bat can play.
And I can't remember where in Tennessee JR lives, but I guess this could be him talking to Callis:
Justin (Nashville): There have been some reports that Dan Vogelbach moves a lot better for a big guy than some scouts first believed. With Rizzo hopefully being the long term solution at 1B for the Cubs, how laughable/ridiculous is the notion that Vogelbach could play LF?
Jim Callis: I'll put it this way: I've never talked to a scout who thought Vogelbach had a chance to play left field. There's a better chance that he's a DH only than he's a left fielder. That said, kudos to him on a great year with the bat.
Vogelbach in LF isn't happening.
-
Agree with br.
Besides, even if LF for Vogelbach was more than just message board talk, Boise is still a long way from Chicago. There are a whole lot of things that can happen (Vogelbach turning into the next Dopirak, Rizzo looking like a more attractive guy than Vogelbach to trade 3-4 years from now, Vogelbach being traded for a building block player, etc.) and a lot of time left before we even need to start discussing this.
-
Has there been anyone other than a few Cubs fans who have suggested that Vogelbach stands a chance of playing LF at the major league level? Because everything I've read from the typical national prospect guys is that he's first base only. And some (Keith Law specifically off the top of my head) think that anything other than DH may be a stretch. This all sounds like Cubs fans not having realistic expectations for their own prospects to me.
If it was that easy to move a surprisingly athletic big guy to LF, the Tigers would have done it last year with Fielder or Cabrera...because Cabrera is pretty awful at third.
-
....The point being made is that if a player is a good enough hitter, Epstein is likely to find a place in the field for him.
If he doesn't turn out to be a good enough hitter, then he won't find a place for him.
Ruling him out at this point, without even knowing what kind of left fielder he would make, seems a little premature.
Exactimundo. It's perhaps improbable that his defense will be close enough to average and his offense far enough above average to make it work. But it's possible. Maybe he will hit enough to make it work.
Manny's net was so good that he was worth $20/year (before it was common), and to merit MVP discussion every year. I don't think Vogelbach would need to hit at Manny's level to be at least useful.
-
Actually, both are very good arguments. The point being made is that if a player is a good enough hitter, Epstein is likely to find a place in the field for him.
If he doesn't turn out to be a good enough hitter, then he won't find a place for him.
Ruling him out at this point, without even knowing what kind of left fielder he would make, seems a little premature.
It is safe to say that if Vogelbach makes the majors he will do so because of his bat, not his base-running, his glove or his arm. All I have been trying to say is that if his bat is good enough to get him there, neither his glove nor his speed are going to prevent him from playing, even for Theo, and even in LF.
-
Mark Bellhorn was a swiss army knife kind of a player: did a ton of things marginally well enough to be useful. Could play any position on the diamond (and actually wasn't that bad at 2B), minus catcher. Switch hit. During the year he got a decent amount of PA's for Boston, he posted great offensive numbers for a MI.
Manny Ramirez is one of the best hitters ever. On the all time OPS+ leaderboard, his name is in the grouping with Mays, Aaron, DiMaggio, Wagner, Robinson, etc.
Both players are awful comps for Vogelbach as to why his defense might play in LF under a Theo regime.
Both payers are excellent examples, however, to refute the claim that Theo is so obsessed with defense that Vogelbach could not play OF for the Cubs under Theo. If those who have worked with Vogelbach are correct in believing he could play LF without hurting the team defensively, then his defense would be better than Ramirez', and Bellhorn's marginal at best defense was at a premium defensive position, yet Theo sought him out for a contending team.
-
Considering the potential benefits of three years of sensible eating and frequent visits to the gym, it's far too early to assume he'll still be 6'0'', 250 when he reaches the big leagues.
-
Actually, both are very good arguments. The point being made is that if a player is a good enough hitter, Epstein is likely to find a place in the field for him.
If he doesn't turn out to be a good enough hitter, then he won't find a place for him.
Ruling him out at this point, without even knowing what kind of left fielder he would make, seems a little premature.
-
Finally, if Miguel Cabrera (listed as 6'4", 240) can play 3B, either Vogelbach or Rizzo might be able to do the same.
Miguel Cabrera is both incredibly athletic for a man his size and is in the Manny Ramirez hitter class. Again, a very poor argument for why shifting either Rizzo or Vogelbach around the diamond might make sense.
-
I don't expect to see Vogelbach in Chicago before September 2015. By then, the National League may well have adopted the Designated Hitter to standardize the rules of MLB and stop the drain of NL sluggers moving to the AL for longer contracts than NL teams could sanely offer.
Even if that doesn't happen, Vogelbach might have trimmed down a bit by the time he reaches Chicago.
Finally, if Miguel Cabrera (listed as 6'4", 240) can play 3B, either Vogelbach or Rizzo might be able to do the same.
-
Mark Bellhorn was a swiss army knife kind of a player: did a ton of things marginally well enough to be useful. Could play any position on the diamond (and actually wasn't that bad at 2B), minus catcher. Switch hit. During the year he got a decent amount of PA's for Boston, he posted great offensive numbers for a MI.
Manny Ramirez is one of the best hitters ever. On the all time OPS+ leaderboard, his name is in the grouping with Mays, Aaron, DiMaggio, Wagner, Robinson, etc.
Both players are awful comps for Vogelbach as to why his defense might play in LF under a Theo regime.
-
It's hard to imagine that Vogelbach could be a worse left fielder than manny Ramirez.
Of course, it is possible that he won't be as good a hitter as manny.
-
Vogelbach isn't going to move to another position with the way that Theo and Hoyer value defense, and I doubt Rizzo will, either.
Manny Ramirez, and Mark Bellhorn were both regular position players on Theo teams, and Vogelbach are on record as saying Vogelbach should be able to be acceptable defensively in LF, without being a defensive liability.
I think too many people continue to write him off as a fat boy.
-
I have no interest at all in raping our farm system for Stanton.
We need a lot more than one player no matter how good he may be.
I saw him play a lot when he was in the Southern League and he is an amzing athlete though.
-
1 pre-arb year, 3 arb years left. I reallllllly doubt the Marlins trade him unless they get an absurd package.
-
Arb eligible in 2014, free agent in 2017, per baseball-reference.com.
-
Does anyone know Stanton's contract/free agency status?
-
From the Cubs' perspective, any trade of Stanton would start with Baez and Vogelbach, IMO. Both are high ceiling guys currently blocked by borderline superstars who are very young. Baez has crazy tools, but he also has a long, long way to go, and if he is pushed off SS, his value drops. Probably not by much, given the **** poor state of 2B and 3B at the ML level, but the value still goes down. Vogelbach isn't going to move to another position with the way that Theo and Hoyer value defense, and I doubt Rizzo will, either. So unless the NL is getting a DH anytime soon, Vogelbach just doesn't fit this roster. Baez/Vogelbach isn't Profar/Olt by any means, but it's not chopped liver, either.
Not sure where you go from there, as I doubt the Cubs want to trade pitching outside of Garza, and I don't see Garza working for the Marlins. I don't see the Cubs selling low on Jackson, Almora is kind of the poster child for this front office, Soler's trade value probably isn't high enough to warrant including in the deal, and no one else is valueable enough to be a co-headliner in a Stanton deal. Perhaps that's where another team would have to get involved - Garza goes to a contender who sends more prospects to the Marlins, for example.
A trade for Stanton would be tough enough to accomplish, let alone a multi-team deal. It's fun to dream, and with the way a move like this could accellerate the Cubs' timetable to contention, converting risky long-term assets into blue-chip long term assets, I think a deal could make sense. I just don't think there's a deal to be had in the first place.
All that said, since we've entertained the impossible for a moment, why not continue? After the Cubs trade for Stanton, next winter they refuse to be out-bid for Cano.
-
Or, to put it in perspective, the 2004 Red Sox (Theo's 2nd draft) took Dustin Pedroia as the team's first pick, the 65th pick in the draft, and Pedroia to date has a WAR of 30.7
-
Assuming LaRoche re-signs with Washington and the other three sign with teams without a protected first-round pick, the Cubs' second-round pick would be #40. There are 31 first-round picks (Pittsburgh gets a comp pick for not signing Appel), six lottery picks, the Yankees' comp pick for Swisher (the Indians first-round pick was protected) and the Astros' second-round pick ahead of us. If all four remaining qualified free agents sign with teams with protected first-round picks, our second-round pick would fall to #44.
To put this into perspective, our comp picks last year were #43 (Pierce Johnson) and #56 (Paul Blackburn), and our second-round pick was #67 (Duane Underwood).
-
Thanks BR and CBJ.
-
Samardzija, Soler, and to a lesser extent Castro would have limited interest to Miami. They have Nolasco at around $10 million, and then their next highest salary is $2 million. Know Samardzija/Garza could get traded for prospects but your still going to go up against some farm systems that have high-end, MLB ready talent that is cheap.
3 so far. 2 1st rounders were eliminated, 1 second rounder. Bourn, LaRoche, Lohse, Soriano are the remaining free agents that will cost a pick.
-
Jackson takes the roster to 40, with Carlos Villanueva yet to be rostered, so somebody (Campana, please) must go.
-
You can look that up with a filter in MLB Trade Rumors' free agent tracker:
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2013-mlb-free-agent-tracker
So far:
Swisher, Hamilton, and Upton have changed teams, and their old team gets a draft pick.
Ortiz and Kuroda declined qualifying offers but remained with the same team, so no pick is awarded.
Lohse, Bourn, LaRoche, and Soriano have declined qualifying offers and could still give their old team draft pick compensation.
-
Does anyone know how many free agents have been signed so far that result in a compensation pick being awarded? I'm not sure where to look for such information.
-
Of course the Cubs have enough. I suspect an offer of Samardzija, Castro, Rizzo, Baez, Soler, Almora, Vizcaino and Almora would be acceptable to Miami. Those they had no use for could be traded for some that they needed.
If you meant that they didn't have enough to spare, I agree.
-
I doubt Soler would interest the Marlins, he'd be their 2nd highest paid player. I generally wouldn't be into dumping the farm, but for Stanton I would give up whatever the wanted. I just doubt the Cubs have enough.
A lot of what gets posted in second hand info and it doesn't go anywhere, but I'm sure there is a lot of crap that jets discussed by teams that end up going no where. Another rumor was a 3 way trade with, Gyorko to the Cubs, Gavin Floyd to the Padres, Woods to the White Sox. Additional Cubs involved would be Vitters, Szcur+. A pretty low chance of it happening though.
-
I would trade Baez for Stanton in a heartbeat, for all the reasons that Craig gives, and more.
The problem is, Miami would scoff at that offer.
Getting Stanton in a trade would take more than Baez. It would take more than Baez and Castro. It would probably take as much, or more, than Baez, Castro and Soler.
In my opinion.
-
Cubs.com has a space for Jackson on the roster. Not sure if they're correct, though...I don't remember anyone being taken off at any point for him.
Also, Rosenthal tweet:
Looks like there are 40 men on the roster with Jackson on there, and I don't see anyone obvious who's missing. Maybe we did have a spot open before today.
-
Cubs.com has a space for Jackson on the roster. Not sure if they're correct, though...I don't remember anyone being taken off at any point for him.
Also, Rosenthal tweet:
Ken Rosenthal @Ken_Rosenthal
Lots of interest in #Marlins’ Stanton, but sources all but rule out a deal. One source says chances are “as close to zero as they can be.”
-
We still need to make a 40 man move to make room for Jackson don't we?
-
Here's the post referenced by CUBluejays earlier:
Cubs have put together a significant package to present to Miami (have yet to discuss name with team)... View this as a 'once in a generation' opportunity and are determined to 'make it difficult for Miami to say no'... Have done exploratory work on potential three and four team opportunities, possibly flipping MLB SP for prospects as well...
If the Marlins decide to trade Stanton, I think the main thing it would do is open the door for the Cubs to trade for one of the Diamondbacks outfielders. If the Marlins trade Stanton, then the smart money is on him ending up with the Rangers. If the Rangers got him, they'd be out of the market for Upton or Kubel...and they've seemed like the DBacks most aggressive suitors the entire offseason. The Diamondbacks pretty much have to move one of their 5 or so starting quality outfielders before the season starts. If Texas was no longer a match, the Cubs might be able to sweep in and pursue Upton or (much more likely) Parra.
-
Craig's campaign against Baez continues. Shameless.
-
Will be interesting how it goes with Garza.
1. I really don't imagine that a couple of good outings in Mesa is going to quite lay to rest all concerns about his arm, though. Or if it does, I think the buyer is kinda foolish.
2. I'd love it to be that way. If you could trade a full year of Garza, with the buyer thinking he's 100%, and with the buyer feeling like they can either extend him (in which case it's not "just" a rental; or at least get a comp pick back to neutralize one of the prospects lost), I think you could get a MUCH better package than you'll get as a two-month rental in July.
3. Whether it's in March or in July or a comp pick, whatever we get back will be a LOT less than had they moved Garza last winter, or last June. I think they blew some opportunity there. And I believe that if they don't trade him in March, they'll probably lose opportunity again. The value just keeps going down, the longer you wait.
4. I have no idea what kind of crazy Stanton rumors these message-board guys are coming up with. And while some pretty new KC writer or blogger or whatever is probably trying to hear things, and may be generous enough to pass on what he hears, I doubt that he's anywhere close to serious action. Seems pretty remote/tenuous.
5. That said, I think there is considerable merit in discussing Baez trades. He's got a ton of reputation, and fans and probably scouts/GM's anywhere would probably be really excited to add a mega-tools talent like that. Maybe he could stand as the heart of a deal for a really good young player. I'd consider that because we've got no talent to spend our money on, now or in the short future or at least knowably into the distant future. If we traded for a really good young salary, paying for a star wouldn't hurt us. Second, Theo could accelerate his rebuilding plan. Having a talent starting from April 2013 on, rather than having Baez have his first Cubs April be in 2015, that would accelerate the timeline. Third, Baez is all tools and projection, but he seems to be a wildly undisciplined hitter and he's been a terrible average/OBP/K/BB guy at Daytona and in AFL. I've got to believe there's a very real chance that he's never going to be all that good, no matter how glorious the HR's are when he hits them. Trading now could be a brilliant sell-high move. Fourth, Castro is a good SS, and Baez is a SS. His value to us as a hitting SS who plays 3B or 2B might be less than to another team where he could be a hitting SS who plays good SS. Fifth, I wonder if Baez really fits as a Theo/Hoyer guy. They seem to be oriented (to some degree) towards hard-working, grinding, overachiever, disciplined, highly coachable, good chemistry type guys. Baez may in fact be all of those things, other than the discipline/grinder. But it's possible that his approach, not only as a hitter but also as a person, might not be a great fit with the "culture" and attitude Theo ideally wants? Anyway, I'd be pretty open to the idea of including him in trade discussions.
-
The Edwin Jackson deal has been officially announced. Press conference at 3:00 central time this afternoon.
-
JR: http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/forumdisplay.php?f=15
FWIW, I've been following since just before the winter meetings they have been pretty reliable this offseason. The Marlin guy does seem to be truly connected to the front office, but only shows up about once a week. ABTY is a Kansas City sportswriter who hears things...so his info is legit, but a lot of times seems to be second or third hand.
Thanks br.
-
Because if push comes to shove, I think the Rangers have the depth to send Profar/Olt+ to get Stanton.
Exactly.
-
JR: http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/forumdisplay.php?f=15
FWIW, I've been following since just before the winter meetings they have been pretty reliable this offseason. The Marlin guy does seem to be truly connected to the front office, but only shows up about once a week. ABTY is a Kansas City sportswriter who hears things...so his info is legit, but a lot of times seems to be second or third hand.
-
Just wondering, what board is it where ABTY, Marlin, and all these other big time insiders post?
-
I'm not sure the Cubs should go after Stanton. I just don't think the Cubs have the pieces to get it done without giving up Baez, at least one of the three primary building blocks already in the majors (Castro, Rizzo, Samardzija), and 2-3 other very good prospects (probably including Vizcaino). This team has too many long term holes all over the field to give up most of their high ceiling players for one guy, even if that one guy is a monster like Stanton. Just looking from a pure player value standpoint, Stanton is probably worth all that. But there's a pretty big gap between Rizzo/Samardzija/Baez/Vizcaino and the guys who would be expected to take their places.
I don't know, maybe the Cubs could find a scenario where they involve a third team and can flip some combination of Garza/Marmol/Soriano for prospects to send to Miami with Baez+. But I think JR is right that it's really all fantasy. Because if push comes to shove, I think the Rangers have the depth to send Profar/Olt+ to get Stanton. And Profar has more value to a cheap team like Miami than anyone the Cubs could send--even Castro.
-
The Cubs making a big offer for Stanton sounds more like message board fantasyland than anything else.
-
The rumor is that Garza will get traded if healthy or the rehab isn't going well. I'd like to just sign him to an extension if he's healthy though. ABTY has everybody excited that the Cubs are going to make a large offer for Stanton. I just don't see the Cubs being able to beat out Rangers, Cardinals, etc if the Marlins do want to trade him.
-
If Garza seems healthy in the spring, there would be a strong reason to trade him before the season starts.
Ont thing that I haven't seen mentioned. If the offers for Garza are not substantial enough in July, one option that the Cubs have is to just keep him, and make a qualifying offer next winter. In that case, the least they can get for him is a supplimental draft choice.
-
The freedom to deal a pitcher as good as Garza can be in his last year before free agency -- and the possible draft compensation he'd create on departure -- could bring in some sorely needed talent to their rebuilding effort.
http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/31806/overstocked-rotations-worth-watching (http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/31806/overstocked-rotations-worth-watching)
If Garza gets dealt during spring training, wouldn't that mean a team trading for him would be able to get a draft pick for him? If that's the case, his trade value takes a pretty decent sized hit the moment the 2013 regular season starts, since you can't get a draft pick for him if he's traded during the season, so if he's healthy this spring, there's a big advantage in getting him dealt before the 2013 season begins.
I wonder if all the stockpiling of starting pitching this offseason means that a healthy Garza's chances of being dealt in spring training are a lot higher than a lot of us are expecting. It does seem weird that Feldman, Villenueva, and Baker would all sign with us if they weren't counting on rotation spots early in the season, after all.
-
I'm surprised br hasn't jumped on this one. UUU is out of prison!
Can you believe its been 7 years?
-
Not just her...
Ain't NOBODY got time for dat.
-
So the Cubs lose Sweet Brown as a fan.
-
It's going to take awhile...more patience and lots more Ls on the way there...
In the famous words of Sweet Brown...
(https://bbf.createaforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F24.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_m8na9yRSYl1rrzd87o1_500.gif&hash=2901f46a93f494f6bf384c465eed7327ff9df17c)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cT_Ulmcrys (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cT_Ulmcrys)
-
Jes, I agree with you...last season was, actually, a really good season...painful re Ws/Ls, but that's not the real name of the game right now...and it wasn't last season...we've needed to build the foundation with a solid plan for, well, forever...finally, that IS happening.
Likewise, I'm more optimistic that i've been in about 55 years as a Cub fan. It's going to take awhile...more patience and lots more Ls on the way there...but, at last, we are FINALLY getting somewhere....it's going to be good to be a Cub fan! Book it! (just don't make the book any time real soon)
-
Jeff Passan @JeffPassan
Source in Japan says lefty reliever Hisanori Takahashi has agreed with Cubs on a minor league deal with big league invite.
-
Agree that the yahoo article was so-so. The author doesn't seem to realize that the contract terms for later years aren't $13 per, so he'll be more tradable. Jackson's history is as a decent but replaceable pitcher, again not likely to be a huge boom-or-bust kind of deal. In today's market, the deal isn't all that huge. And it goes with the territory that any multi-year deal with a pitcher has a chance to look bad at the end.
I think a fair point in several of the analyses has been that Jackson throws very fast and has a slider that can look very good. As a younger pitcher, he's always looked like a guy whose stuff seemed to suggest that he might blossom into an above-average pitcher, rather than the 98 ERA+ guy that he's been over his career. Even now, I still somewhat hope that he'll pitch a little more consistently to his potential than he's done before. But as the Law piece suggested, and reb, that's maybe not very likely. His fastball may be fast, but a straightish fastball without great command is not really any more effective than a somewhat less fast fastball that has better sink, movement, and location. And at this stage in his career, the likelihood that his fastball gets any better isn't very realistic. And as good as his good sliders may look, breaking balls are hard to spot consistently. A lot of the many HR's allowed aren't on the well-executed sliders or well-located fastballs; they are on the mistakes: the sliders that hang, and the fastballs that are too up, too straight, and too off the edges. Not a ton of likelihood that his slider is going to get much more consistent at this stage.
Still, pitchers can sometimes make changes well into their careers. Didn't Lilly largely change his repertoire while with us? He'd been largely a fastball/curveball guy, with a pretty decent fastball; it was well into his career that his changeup became really good. Heh heh, maybe Bosio is going to help him tune up a dynamic cutter and he's going to become excellent?
-
It's been a disappointing season past, with all the losses,
I was actually quite happy about this past season and amd more encouraged and excited about the future for the Cubs than any time since the end of 2003, or at least since just before first hearing Steve Bartman's name at the end of 2003.
For the first time it appears there is a real plan in place, that management will follow the plan, that the plan makes sense, that ownership is on board with the plan, that the resources will be available to put it in place, and that those making the decisions are more likely than not going to make solid decisions.
-
Merry Christmas, everybody! “Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.”
It's been a disappointing season past, with all the losses, but fun to have been able to share it, ups and downs, with Bleacher Bums friends. I look forward to sharing the season ahead as well, and hope that we see a lot of reasons to be optimistic.
-
Unless he suffers an injury, there is no reason to believe the amount the Cubs signed Jackson for will leave him difficult to trade at any time during the 4 years of the contract, or even to think the Cubs will likely have to eat any significant part of the contract. That being the case, there is little reason for the writer to suggest that "four years from now we'll look back on this signing as Team Theo's first big mistake," nor, for that matter little reason for him to conclude that alternatively "four years from now we'll look back on this signing as... the first big splash during the rebuild."
It's a move allowing the Cubs to run a credible major league starter out there every 5th day for four years, not a great starter, but a credible one.
Those moves are not often seen either as big splashes or big mistakes.
-
A pretty negative take on the Jackson signing:
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/chicago-cubs-think-edwin-jackson-worth-four-years-042500789--mlb.html
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwQoF105RO4
-
Why would I think they are not firmly entrenched?
I don't think otherwise.
-
The question about our backup 1Bman was not a response to you. It was a general question for the board.
I have not given anyone any reason to believe that I think Nelson has any business on the ML roster in 2013, but for some strange reason you seem to think that.
Rizzo is as firmly entrenched at 1B as Castro is at SS. Why would you think otherwise?
-
Take that, Dave! Oh, and Obama is toast.
-
I've already explained that. You posted it here. This is the Cubs in topic.
When I pointed out that, "if Nelson sees any time in a major league uniform for the Cubs, the 2013 season (or beyond) is going to be uglier than anyone here imagines," you followed that immediately by asking, "As the roster sits right now, who is the backup 1Bman if Rizzo has to go on the 15 day DL? 60 day?"
No question that believing he has any real prospect of playing time in Chicago in 2013, or that if he gets that playing time it would mean anything other than 2013 would be uglier than anyone here imagines, but your initial post, HERE, followed by your question, but your posts certainly indicate that you thought he might.
If you want to back away from that now, go right ahead.
-
I posted it here on purpose, because I didn't want to interrupt the flow of the prospect rating currently going on there.
The better question would be...why would you think anyone would see Nelson factoring into any 2013 plans?
-
Why do you keep bringing up Nelson? He's Iowa's 1Bman...nothing more.
Do you really need an answer to that? It's Jes, that's what he does. His whole schtick is trying to find the most minor, irrelevant things to endlessly argue about. And amazingly, people here still bite after all these years.
-
Yes he was signed.
But as you point out, he as signed to a minor league contract.
Since we have an On The Farm topic, but you did not post it there, it would appear it was posted here out of some belief that in fact the guy has some role in the 2013 plans.
As I pointed out, if Nelson sees any time in a major league uniform for the Cubs, the 2013 season (or beyond) is going to be uglier than anyone here imagines.
-
Because he was signed.
And if he is having the kind of year he had last year, and Rizzo gets hurt and goes on the DL, I suspect that he would be called up and given the chance to fill in. Probably won't do very well, but he is still the most likely replacement at this point, in my opinion.
Circumstances can change. If Stewart is back to his form of a couple of years ago, they might well put him at first, and put Valbuena at third. But if both Stewart and Valbuena is struggling, as is quite possible, Nelson is probably the guy.
-
My original post said he was signed to a minor league deal.
-
Why do you keep bringing up Nelson? He's Iowa's 1Bman...nothing more.
Every time I have mentioned Nelson it has been in response to your posts.
If he is indeed Iowa's 1Bman and nothing more (and I agree with that), then why mention his signing here?
-
Why do you keep bringing up Nelson? He's Iowa's 1Bman...nothing more.
I'd prefer Stewart at 1B and Valbuena at 3B if something happened to Rizzo, personally...
-
::)
-
And those are good reasons to get someone some practice and innings at firstbase in spring training, or even to acquire a bench player who has experience at first, perhaps even an old vet with enough experience there to give Rizzo a few pointers on the position.
Those are NOT reasons to think of Nelson as an option.
-
Other than Rizzo, Welington Castillo is the only member of the likely 25-man roster to have ever played a major league inning at first base.
He had no chances.
-
Valbuena.
-
As the roster sits right now, who is the backup 1Bman if Rizzo has to go on the 15 day DL? 60 day?
-
Nelson is the kind of player who likely will help the Iowa club, and certainly there is value in having your minor league prospects playing in a compet-itive environment where they are in ballgame and exposed to other players who play the game right and reasonably well, even if not well enough to ever contribute at the major league level, but if Nelson sees any time in a major league uniform for the Cubs, the 2013 season (or beyond) is going to be uglier than anyone here imagines.
-
Iowa native...and they need a 1Bman...
-
Last year was his 8th season in AAA, and unfortunately he is not even really a 4A player. The last two years he has been a good AAA player, but not great: avg of .280/24HR/82 RBI/.362 OBP. At 30 years old tomorrow, he's not likely to get better.
-
Former Brewers 1B prospect Brad Nelson has been signed to a minor league deal.
-
davep, I wasn't looking at the team perspective at all, but the player perspective.
And I wasn't responding to your post. I was responding to brjones' post. Paying it before the end of 2012 makes no difference as far as which year's payroll budget is charged.
-
Ricketts can put it anywhere he wants.
We are talking about money, right?
-
davep, I wasn't looking at the team perspective at all, but the player perspective.
-
When it is paid isn't the important thing. From a tax point of view, the company can just accrue it on their books. From an operational point of view, Ricketts can put it anywhere he wants. From a cash flow point of view, a couple of weeks either way probably isn't going to make much of a difference.
-
Here's information about the structure of the Jackson deal from Bleacher Nation:
http://www.bleachernation.com/2012/12/22/the-interesting-financial-particulars-of-edwin-jacksons-contract/
The point he makes about the signing bonus is that as long as it's paid out this week, it essentially will be charged against 2012's payroll....
And at the 2012 tax rate.
Look for some other serious signings of FA before the end of the year, and with many of them similarly structured to have signing bonuses which are paid in 2012 instead of after the tax rates go up.
On a 10M salary, a 3% tax increase is $300K.
-
A poster says there isn't a no-trade clause in Jackson's deal.
If the contract doesn't have an explicit no-trade clause, will he be fully tradable for the duration of the deal? There won't be any CBA rules that will automatically give him no-trade rights?
-
Here's information about the structure of the Jackson deal from Bleacher Nation:
http://www.bleachernation.com/2012/12/22/the-interesting-financial-particulars-of-edwin-jacksons-contract/
The point he makes about the signing bonus is that as long as it's paid out this week, it essentially will be charged against 2012's payroll, presumably with leftover money they didn't spend on this year's team. So the impact to the payroll really is 4 years/$44 million--the signing bonus won't even impact 2013's payroll.
-
Keith Law's analysis of the Edwin Jackson deal has just been posted on ESPN. I haven't read it yet, but the first paragraph indicates he actually gets paid $11 million per year, and he got an $8 million signing bonus. Had anyone mentioned that before? If that's the case, the deal is even better.
Interesting structure. I like the front-loading/bonus, while we've got a tiny payroll and limited talent worthy of the budget available. At $11 rather than $13, Jackson will seem like a better value. Easier to trade; more likely to seem like a real bargain if he improves a little while inflation makes $11/per seem better and better; and $11/per will seem like less dead money if his health/performance deteriorates later in the contract. Good thinking by management.
-
I don't see Bourn as much help to the Cubs. I wouldn't give him more than two year under any circumstances, and I wouldn't go as high as 10 million per year. 155 strike outs with little power, last year and a .700 lifetime OPS just isn't worth the money. I would much rather rely on Brett Jackson.
To put that into perspective, both Ryan Theriot and Corey Patterson have lifetime OPS's of .691, while Bourn is at .704. Even Felix Pie was at .699 before he fell off the cliff in 2011 (after two seasons in Chicago and two in Baltimore), posting a OPS of .545 in 2011 and spending 2012 in AAA.
-
I don't see Bourn as much help to the Cubs. I wouldn't give him more than two year under any circumstances, and I wouldn't go as high as 10 million per year. 155 strike outs with little power, last year and a .700 lifetime OPS just isn't worth the money. I would much rather rely on Brett Jackson.
-
Bourn is a Boras client and the initial reports had them looking for a 5/100 contract.
Now, lots of clubs have filled their CF need and you have to wonder where Bourn might land. At this point, seems that 5/100 might be a pipe dream and Bourn is probably looking at four years tops, with lesser annual money.
I previously mentioned the Edwin Jackson 4/52 contract--or maybe something like 4/60 for Bourn. I'm not sure that he gets more than that at this point. Is that a value contract?
One thing I'm always amazed by with Boras is he always seems to gets the money he wants for his clients, even when you'd think the market wouldn't dictate it. Like Prince Fielder last year for example, I seem to remember the 1B market had supposedly dried up and big market teams didn't have a big need for him, but he still wound up getting paid by Detroit anyway.
Maybe 5/100 is really a pipe dream for Bourn, but Boras is very rarely stuck having his clients sign for "value" contracts. It'll be interesting to see how Bourn's situation plays out, but it certainly wouldn't be surprising if he winds up signing for a big contract, even with the CF market starting to dry up. Boras certainly has a gift for making teams bid against themselves for a player.
-
Went downtown today, but not to the Rendezvous...close enough to smell it while walking, though!
-
They should take Soriano off the 40 man roster.
-
How was the Rendezvous today, Dave?
-
40? Coleman should get thru everyone's 80...
-
It would be embarrassing to find out exactly how many would get through waivers.
I nominate Coleman. Unless he's already off the 40.
-
Pretty amazing the awful 40 man roster of the Cubs can have all of these players that other teams want.
-
Rosario has had one adventurous offseason.
-
Rosario did not clear waivers. Still one more spot to clear.
-
Glad the Cubs were willing to risk admitting a mistake with Concepcion instead of keeping him on the 40 man just because of his signing bonus.
-
Shockingly Gerardo Concepcion cleared waivers.
-
Well the once fairly well regarded lefty relief prospect trio of Jeff Beliveau, John Gaub, and Scott Maine has officially resulted in no major league relievers for the Cubs.
-
The Rangers have claimed the recently DFA'd Jeff Beliveau. Too bad.
-
Thanks, JR. That's a very favorable assessment.
-
Given the current price of starting pitching in free agency, the annual salary of $11 million (excluding the $8 million he'll receive as a signing bonus) that Edwin Jackson got from the Chicago Cubs is reasonable, especially because he probably carries relatively little risk of either a significant dip in performance or of missing a significant chunk of time.
Jackson, 29, threw 183 innings in 2008 and has exceeded that total in each of the four seasons since, and has made 31 or more starts in all six seasons since he became a major league starter. He just posted the highest strikeout rate and second-lowest walk rate of his career, numbers he could pretty easily repeat, given his stuff and previous performance. He probably will never turn into the No. 1 or 2 starter that his raw stuff would indicate, but a pitcher who is worth roughly three wins above replacement every season with only minimal deviations from that number is still a valuable asset.
Signing a top free agent to a long-term deal isn't usually a great strategy for a 90-plus loss team, but there's merit to the Cubs' move here. Jackson's presence on the roster gives them more flexibility to potentially trade a starter, if not two, during the 2013 season.
Matt Garza likely would be an ex-Cub by now if he'd finished the 2012 season healthy, and he could move as early as spring training if he looks like his old self. If Scott Baker or Scott Feldman throw well in the first half of 2013, they would be ideal trade bait before the July 31 deadline, which is the best argument for signing them in the first place -- but now doing so won't leave the team with a skeleton crew rotation behind Jeff Samardzija in the final two months of the season.
Jackson also gives the Cubs a third starter for their 2014 rotation after Samardzija and Travis Wood, particularly critical because the Cubs didn't have a solid starting-pitching prospect above short-season ball this year; even an optimistic forecast on Pierce Johnson, the top college pitcher the Cubs drafted in 2012, wouldn't have him in the majors until mid-2014.
With next winter's free-agent market looking as if it'll be light on starting pitchers, signing Jackson now, even if it's for a year longer than I'd want to go on a pitcher of his caliber, makes some sense as insurance against entering the 2014 season with filler in three rotation spots. And if you must go four years, Jackson's history of durability and consistent performance should make you less queasy about it than you'd be with Kyle Lohse or Anibal Sanchez.
I'm more or less dismissing the possibility that Jackson improves from what he has been the past four years, but I suppose it's not impossible. He does have the big fastball and can hold that velocity deep into games, often hitting 97 mph to 98 mph on a few pitches toward the end of an outing, but his command, especially up in the zone, has always left a little to be desired and made him prone to hard contact, including home runs.
He misses bats with his slider, but gets beaten on his fastball too often to be more than a mid-rotation guy who eats a lot of innings, and I've long held that teams buy into him because they see the velocity and figure he can be fixed. The Cubs' deal with him pays him like he'll be as good as he's been, but no better; if there is another level for Jackson, that's potential upside for the Cubs. I just don't expect it, given how long he's been the pitcher we know him to be.
The Cubs also picked up swingman Carlos Villanueva on a pretty cheap two-year deal, paying him $10 million total for a term that probably will see him working both in the rotation and out of the bullpen. He adds to the starting pitching depth, which could make trading Garza and one of Baker or Feldman easier this season, but with the rotation full at the moment, Villanueva probably will head for the bullpen, an area of weakness for the 2012 team that's looking better now with this deal and with the signing of Kyuji Fujikawa.
The Cubs' offseason as a whole hasn't done anything to interfere with the rebuilding program in place; no one's been blocked, and they haven't lost any draft picks or prospects. They're focusing on cheap, short-term deals with players who have a lot of potential to produce surplus value, and the one exception, Jackson, was the safest remaining bet on the starting pitching market. It's the best path for a team that has money but is restricted by the new CBA from putting it into amateur talent acquisition.
-
Keith Law's analysis of the Edwin Jackson deal has just been posted on ESPN. I haven't read it yet, but the first paragraph indicates he actually gets paid $11 million per year, and he got an $8 million signing bonus. Had anyone mentioned that before? If that's the case, the deal is even better.
-
Strong Cub defense could help him.
There's a sentence you don't read every day.
-
The Cubs were so terrible in 2012 that it's not a hard team to improve--there is a lot of low hanging fruit.
While true, any improvement in 2013 is likely to be incidental to improving the team long term and not an actual goal in and of itself.
-
What destroyed the first 3 months of the season last year was the bull pen.
The bullpen was a HUGE problem. But despite that, they were still just shy of 70 win pace before the mass trade-off in July. So just replacing Dempster/Maholm, having Garza healthy, and letting Samardzija finish out September probably gets the 2013 team to about ~70 wins. But they've done considerably more than that.
The Cubs were so terrible in 2012 that it's not a hard team to improve--there is a lot of low hanging fruit. They got essentially nothing out of CF, 3B, and C (until Castillo took over). Exactly one third of their games were started by the group of starters that included Volstad, (injured) Wells, Germano, Coleman, Rusin, Raley, and Berken. The bullpen had only two pitchers (Camp and Russell) who had an fWAR above 0.2, but had 10 guys with negative fWAR coming out of the bullpen. Just getting garden variety below average production out of most of these spots (as opposed to the black holes they were last year) will improve the team by 10 games. And with the way the pitching staff has been rebuilt, they should get considerably more than that.
-
Two other thoughts on Jackson:
1. Pitching tends to wear guys down. Jackson's been in his prime years. Often when a pitcher has thrown a ton of pitches, as he has, the stuff deteriorates somewhat after a bunch of years. Zambrano's stuff at 30 wasn't what it was at 24. Garza was a durable workhorse, but then he wasn't. So even if Jackson stays durable for all four years, that would be good and isn't safe; but even so his arm might not be quite as excellent.
2. There seems to be an explosion of contracts league-wide. If contract inflation continues, contracts that look solid now might look like great-value deals soon, as inflation escalates. Not long ago, $13/year would have been appropriate for aces only. Now, Haren gets $13/1 with bad health and no recent excellence; Sanchez get $16-per; Dempster will be 36 and gets $13+ per; etc. If Jackson can settle in and pitch well for the Cubs, perhaps get a little bit better somehow (HR-reduction, perhaps?), his contract which looks like fair value now might look like terrific value if inflation passes it by. Good players on good-value-per-dollar contracts become excellent trade pieces.
3. While age and wear might make it more likely that his performance will decline, there would seem to be a chance that he'll get better, too. He had his worst HR-allowed last year in some years. If that just naturally comes back down, his numbers could improve. Strong Cub defense could help him. Perhaps the Cub scouting and seemingly strong Cub coaching might be able to help him in some tiny ways to get a little bit better, a little more consistent. Very hard to hit HR in Wrigley spring, so while pricey FA hitters routinely get off to bad starts, as a HR-allowing pitcher, he might be perfectly situated to get off to a good start. Perhaps having a consistent pitching coach for more than a year might help him a little. Perhaps a terrific defense could help him, too. Pitching in Wrigley spring with a good defense, why not throw a lot of fastball strikes and let them hit them, or else get ahead in the count and kill them with the slider? Obviously these last two years he's been bad in the post-season, but the non-contending Cubs might be a low-pressure environment that's good for him? Perhaps he's poised to take that step from being a solid #4/#3 starter to becoming a solid #3/#2 starter, and with his per-year contract, with extended club control rather than being terminal, being younger, and without no-trade rights, is trade value will be much higher than Dempster's?
-
What destroyed the first 3 months of the season last year was the bull pen. It was worse than terrible. The greatest portion of the improvements so far have been in the pen. The rotation changes have really just repaired the first four (Dempster/Samardzija/Garza/Maholm with Jackson/Samardzija/Garza/Feldman). Baker, when he returns, is going to greatly upgrade the fifth starter. The the bullpen is going to go from a disaster to a strength. If they don't trade Marmol, his first 3 months are likely to be substantially better than last year's first three months. When you add to that Fujisawa and Villaneuva to go along with Camp and Russel., that is light years ahead of last season. And I am willing to bet anyone that Rondon will be substantially better than Lendy Castillo. All this is before the ultimate return of Baker and Vizcaino.
Look at the number of games the pen blew for us in the first half of last season. I think 10 is an understatement.
-
Am I advocating a 5/100 contract for Bourn? Absolutely not. But I would love a 1 year deal at a higher AAV, and I would have no problem with a multiyear contract in the $13-15 AAV range. I think Bourn generates a lot of surplus value over that, especially as free agent contracts inflate with the influx of TV money into baseball.
So the Cubs lose a draft pick, for one year of a player in a season where they are not going to make the playoffs?
That simply does not seem to be a good idea to me, and would seem to be quite at odds with the long term plan the Theocracy seems to have.
I suspect that because of the loss of a draft pick, the Theocracy would actually turn down Bourne on a one year deal if he were to play for free.
-
We still do suck. We're a .500 team at best. There's way too many holes in our everyday lineup. Our pitching will carry us.
-
I agree with your analysis, craig. At this point, their ceiling is .500. They remain sellers at the trading deadline.
-
For 100 million I dont want any part of Michael Bourn.
-
Fun to have some signings. I don't see the .500 talk, this elevates from the Vitters/Jackson/Berken horrifically awful version that was playing in August/September. The offense, the rotation, and the relief were all awful/awful/awful down the stretch.
But the offense still looks awful.
The Cubs had pretty excellent rotation pitching during much of the first half, when Dempster and Maholm were both pitching out of their heads, and Garza and Samardz were both good, and for a while Wood went on a good streak. Four good rotation pitchers all pitching well. So while the rotation is better than the Berken/Rusin/Raley type version, I'm not confident that it's going to be any better or as good as the first-half version. Jackson probably isn't going to be leading the league in ERA like Dempster did. So to some degree I think they've just worked hard to get back to where we were prior to losing Dempster, Maholm, and Garza.
Last year we had relatively few valuable players. But any player who's a legit, solid major leaguer and who ends up being good value-per-contract, that's a potential asset. Whether keeping for yourself, or transacting to somebody else. Jackson has a chance to be an asset, as does Villanueva. At the same time, as the Jackson-supporting scout noted in the Phil Rodgers article, he's a solid #4 guy, maybe a solid #3. Strong value over Coleman and Berken, yes. But doesn't get you ahead of guys in the Giants or Reds or Nationals rotation. I'm envisioning him as something of a Matt Clement guy. Good pitcher, but not enough control to be every-day good. The sharp slider can be very good, but as reb noted, sometimes you've got it and sometimes you don't. And as with Clement, there will be enough hanging sliders to give up a lot of HR's.
I still see the Cubs being at a massive HR-differential, with or without Bourn. Good baserunning and defense can offset a lot of that, but hard to play .500 when you're bottom half in OBP and worst-in-league in HR-differential.
But, who knows. Baseball is a crazy and unpredictable game. So maybe the sum will be more than the parts, and some guys will step up, overachieve, and play .500. Maybe we'll hit a season where everybody is healthy from the start and stays healthy all year long, Garza and Baker will be 100% with almost no misses starts, Stewart will explode into a solid player, Castro will explode into a star, and Jackson will explode into an actually good player, and Rizzo will explode into a star, and Castillo will be a flat-out solid/good catcher, and Barney will somehow improve his offense and boost his OBP by 20 points and be a true-blue .700+ OPS guy, and they'll sign Bourn and he'll hit .290 with a .360 OBP and really set an exciting small-ball win-the-close-ones team. And the defense will be so great that the pitching, other than HR's, will look shockingly good?
-
If a slugger blows out a knee or a hamstring, he's overpaid, too. Here's something suprising: power hitters use their legs. Injuries decimate careers of all shapes and sizes.
I understand the critique of Bourn: all his eggs are in one basket. I don't buy that. His eggs are in TWO baskets if you ask me. One basket is, quite obviously, his legs. The other basket isn't as obvious, but it becomes apparent when you realize that Bourn is one of the best, if not THE best base runner in baseball (and not just because of the stolen bases - he does all the extra things REALLY well). You see it again when you realize that Bourn is one of the best defensive centerfielders in baseball. You need tools (namely speed) to be the best baserunner or the best defender, but you also need something else: brains. Bourn isn't just a roadrunner set of legs. He makes good decisions. After watching guys like Corey Patterson crap out with all the tools in the world, there's something to be said for an innate ability to make smart baseball decisions, which I think Bourn has.
Keep in mind that Bourn has also established himself as basically a league average hitter at a position that drags down the league average. That's one of the things that makes Starlin Castro valuable.
Lastly, when people think about contracts for speedsters, Chone Figgins must immediately come to mind. What a catastrophic failure his deal with the Mariners has been. Here's the difference between the two: Chone had a single full season under his belt at the time he inked that contract. Bourn has been a regular player for 4+ years, and has established his value based on thousands of plate apperances. Consider this: according to WAR, Figgins has been more valuable than Fielder or Hamilton over the past four years. Do you buy the way that WAR measures value for defense? I don't think anybody does completely, not even the guys who created WAR. That said, there's no denying that Bourn is a TREMENDOUS fielder, and that has lots of value, increasingly so as fewer and fewer homers are hit.
Am I advocating a 5/100 contract for Bourn? Absolutely not. But I would love a 1 year deal at a higher AAV, and I would have no problem with a multiyear contract in the $13-15 AAV range. I think Bourn generates a lot of surplus value over that, especially as free agent contracts inflate with the influx of TV money into baseball.
-
And if he blows out a knee or severely tears a hamstring, he's overpaid by an amount almost equal to his remaining contract. Make sure you have insurance!
-
Bourn is a Boras client and the initial reports had them looking for a 5/100 contract.
Now, lots of clubs have filled their CF need and you have to wonder where Bourn might land. At this point, seems that 5/100 might be a pipe dream and Bourn is probably looking at four years tops, with lesser annual money.
I think that Theo will be loathe to give up that second round pick for a qualifying offer guy but, at some point, a Bourn signing could look like a good value if the terms come down.
I previously mentioned the Edwin Jackson 4/52 contract--or maybe something like 4/60 for Bourn. I'm not sure that he gets more than that at this point. Is that a value contract?
Arguably, it is for the Cubs. I think the fears here about Bourn's impending dramatic loss of speed is a bit overstated. The guy will be 30 the entire 2013 season. He ends year three of his next contract at age 32. Sure, anybody can get hurt, but I don't see any reason to think that Bourn is going to lose speed at age 32 (or earlier).
The fourth year at age 33 in 2016---could be a bit more problematic perhaps. But, pretty common for the final season of a multi-year deal to be less value. And I think it's overly optimistic that Almora will be ready to start before 2016 too.
So, if the Bourn contract demands comes down significantly, I think it's something that Theo should at least consider. I expect Bourn to sign with the Rangers but I think it's worth exploring for the Cubs. Cubs would be a very good defensive club with Bourn in CF and Bourn-DeJesus-Castro-Rizzo at the top half of the lineup is kind of interesting.
-
The only contract for Bourn that makes sense to me would be a two year deal with two years' of club options. I expect Almora will be ready sometime during the 2015 season. I certainly don't want to r i s k severe hamstring problems making him a $15 per year albatross who could only function as a reserve OF. When Soriano's leg problems robbed him of his speed, he was still able to hit home runs and drive in runs. Bourn's whole game is based on his speed.
-
I would expect Bourn's contract to be untradeable pretty quickly. If you sign him, it better be because you like him as a player and not because you think you can flip him.
-
What's the likelihood a 2nd round pick turns into Bourn? What's the likelihood we could turn Bourn into a prospect of 2nd round value?
Both of those questions answer positive enough for the Cubs that I have no problem with a Bourn acquisition.
-
Agree with Reb that losing a draft pick is not a good reason to avoid signing Bourn. He either fits the plans or he doesn't.
I guess I'd disagree about that. Granted, I might be overvaluing the worth of a second round draft pick (Just look at all of the Cub 2nd rounders since Maddux . . . yuck.).
Still, we have to rebuild the farm, and right now, I don't think we can be giving away high draft picks like that, even considering how good of a fit I think Bourn would be.
-
How valuable is Bourn is he's a 10-15 SB guy with a .700 OPS? Because that's what you're looking at in 2-3 years.
Bourn's speed isn't going to deteriorate that quickly.
-
If they were going to spend big on a CF, I wish they would have signed Upton. I'm not a huge fan of his, but at least he has power.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/pierrju01.shtml
-
How valuable is Bourn is he's a 10-15 SB guy with a .700 OPS? Because that's what you're looking at in 2-3 years.
-
Rumor is if Bourn signs Soriano and Dejesus on the way out. They aren't looking to replace Soriano with much either.....
-
I really like this deal. If they went into the season with their current pitching staff, it would be an above average staff.
Now, if they could just find a way to upgrade a position player or two, this team could be really fun to watch in 2013.
-
I think the Cubs are looking like a .500 team right now, with potential to do a little better if they catch lightning in a bottle on some guys like Schierholtz and Stewart and get some step up performances from Castro and Rizzo.
The pitching and defense on this team are very solid, if Jackson and Villanueva sign. If we get lucky with a hitter or two and the right players improve this season, this could be a surprisingly good team.
I don't see any way the Cubs are .500 just because of a #3-4 starter and a swingman. It's not as if we're adding Verlander and Price here. Positive moves, full kudos - but short of something major in terms of offense, this just takes up from execrable to mediocre and gives Theo more room to be a seller at the deadline.
-
Being a no-comp free agent helped Jackson. Who knows if Cubs go after him otherwise. Nats replaced him with Haren at just about the same money as a qualifying offer to Jackson, if he accepted.
I saw many of Jackson's Nats games. He is really good when he has his good slider, struggles when it's not there. Went to his playoff game against Cards and he wasn't commanding slider the first few innings. Got it back by the 4th inning or so. Kind of late that day. Nats have very high standards for a starting pitcher these days. I think they liked Jackson but wanted a more consistent guy and Haren has more upside if he's healthy.
-
As Bleacher Nation blogger Brett Taylor tweeted, "Cubs got eight years of Jackson, Villanueva, Baker, and Feldman for $73.5 million. Sanchez cost $80 million for five years. "
-
The nationals did not make Jackson a qualifying offer. Therefore no compensation pick is involved.
I have no clue why they didn't make a comp offer. It should've been obvious that someone would give him a big multiyear deal.
-
Remind me how the draft compensation works, again. Jackson is not costing a pick, correct? Or will he? If not, it's because he wasn't offered arbitration, whereas Bourn was? Or is $52/4 too low a contract to qualify? If so, what is the threshold for qualifying? If $13/year doesn't get you there, it must be a pretty high threshold. For some reason I'd had the idea that $12 or higher per year would get into comp-pick territory....
-
Agree with Reb that losing a draft pick is not a good reason to avoid signing Bourn. He either fits the plans or he doesn't.
The Cubs have spent less on all the pitchers they have signed COMBINED than the contract that Anibal Sanchez got. Tremendous job by the front office.
-
How about Bourn at same terms that Jackson is getting 4/52?
Arguably, that might be worth it, even at the cost of a 2nd rounder. If need be, Cubs could perhaps flip Bourn for at least Pierce Johnson's current prospect value at some point of that contract.
Defense and pitching depth can get you some wins.
-
Ian is on. With the Cubs it could go 1 of 2 ways. They could dump Marmol/Soriano/Garza and we're back to sucking. They could sign Bourn, keep everybody and we're .500. Right now I see it 70-80 wins, but they could dump people at the deadline as well.
-
Is Ian Stewart on the 40? Seems he went through waivers once and FA once. No takers. Not much risk there.
-
Easy. Just go with the Rs. Rusin, Rosario, and Raley.
I still like Campana's wheels well enough to keep him around, at least through spring training.
-
So, Cubs will have to move some guys off the current 40-man, which I believe is right at the 40 maximum (and that doesn't include Schierholtz--what's the story there? A hangup?).
Looks like three guys have to be deleted.
Candidates?
Guessing maybe Campana, Valbuena, Raley as candidates? AZ Phil says there are some restrictions on outrighting Rusin and Rosario, but they have to be candidates to be moved somehow. The more the merrier.
-
John Arguello @CubsDen
@CSNMooney and @thekapman continue to outwork everyone in the local media. Nice job to both of you.
There is something to that.
-
Busy winter for the boys in the front office (and it's not even Christmas yet).
-
We have too much pitching.
-
Yeah, I think it's kind of funny to read some of these boards (PSD or NSBB, for example) and see that most of them are still assuming that it's going to be another mass sell-off at midseason, or that Garza is definitely gone as soon as someone makes an offer. If the Jackson and Villanueva deals do go through, this rotation (and indirectly, this bullpen) are strong enough to keep this team around .500. And if they're around .500 or a little better at the deadline, there isn't going to be a mass sell-off.
Would you like to bet on that one?
-
Ken Rosenthal @Ken_Rosenthal
Sources: #Cubs, free-agent RHP Edwin Jackson agree on four-year, $52M deal, pending physical. First reported by @CSNMooney
-
Gio Gonzalez @GioGonzalez47
Congrats to my boy @EJ36 for his big deal today. You will be missed, couldn't of happened to an amazing friend and great pitcher.
-
Patrick Mooney @CSNMooney
#Cubs have signed Edwin Jackson (four years, $52 million) and Carlos Villanueva, pending physicals.
-
Even up to the first TJ surgery announcement, stiff shoulder DL, oblique discomfort, tired arm, and "I slipped in the tub and stubbed my toe" injury, I wouldn't worry about having too much pitching.
-
I think I'm getting to the point where I don't think dumping Marmol is such a hot idea. I know we were talking to J.P. Howell, but is the upgrade from Marmol to Howell (if it is one) worth paying half of Marmol's salary in addition to a free agent market inflated contract for Howell? I'm pretty doubtful about that.
I guess we could also sign someone like Howell or another veteran pitcher, keep Marmol, and just completely shutout Rosario and other camp competition from the bullpen.
-
when looking at potential pitching staff, don't we have to figure in the guy we took in the rule 5 draft? unless of course they don't want him
Well as it stands now, we'd have room for him. The last spot in the bullpen could be up for grabs for a camp body, although it seems like it would be Rosario's to lose.
Trading Marmol would also open up another spot, but the bullpen looks much better if Fujikawa is pitching setup and Camp is pushed to middle relief. I don't think I want to go into 2013 with Camp as the main RH setup man.
ROTATION
Jeff Samardzija
Matt Garza
Edwin Jackson
Scott Baker
Feldman/Villanueva
BULLPEN
Carlos Marmol
Kyuji Fujikawa
James Russell
Shawn Camp
Travis Wood
Feldman/Villanueva
Sandy Rosario
-
when looking at potential pitching staff, don't we have to figure in the guy we took in the rule 5 draft? unless of course they don't want him
-
The much awaited word from Dave Kaplan. Sort of.
http://www.csnchicago.com/baseball-chicago-cubs/cubs-talk/Cubs-agree-to-deal-with-Villanueva-close?blockID=815737&feedID=10336&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed (http://www.csnchicago.com/baseball-chicago-cubs/cubs-talk/Cubs-agree-to-deal-with-Villanueva-close?blockID=815737&feedID=10336&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed)
-
Not at all, Curt. His peripherals were very strong. Potential for being a very good value signing.
-
His role is to make our hitters feel good about themselves in spring training.
-
Cubs sign another camp arm.
Cory Wade - R - Cubs
Cubs signed RHP Cory Wade to a minor league contract. Wade posted an ugly 6.46 ERA and 1.39 WHIP in 39 innings this past season with the Yankees. The 29-year-old will act as organizational relief depth for Chicago.
-
As much as you love a team it's hard to sit and watch them get beat 100 times. I watched less baseball last year than any year I can ever remember. Part of it's because I coach baseball and dont have as much time but there were several times I'd flip over to it and see them getting whooped and be like "screw this".
-
Oh yeah I knew you were kidding. I'm not purple impaired (or everything else impaired for that matter) like CurtOne.
-
Yes, yes it would.
I hope you know I was kidding. I much prefer winning games to losing them. Particularly when I am watching them.
-
If we have to rely on sucking and losing 90 to 100 games every year for the next 3-4 years and getting high draft picks to get things turned around, then Theo isn't the brilliant baseball executive he's purported to be.
I imagine Theo probably would be the first to agree with me on that, too.
-
But, JR, that would hurt our draft position.
Yes, yes it would.
-
Yeah, I think it's kind of funny to read some of these boards (PSD or NSBB, for example) and see that most of them are still assuming that it's going to be another mass sell-off at midseason, or that Garza is definitely gone as soon as someone makes an offer. If the Jackson and Villanueva deals do go through, this rotation (and indirectly, this bullpen) are strong enough to keep this team around .500. And if they're around .500 or a little better at the deadline, there isn't going to be a mass sell-off.
-
But, JR, that would hurt our draft position.
-
Without upgrades to the offense, I still think the Cubs won't be that good. I think what they are doing is building up enough depth so when the trade deadline hits you aren't seeing Belkin/Rusin/Geramino/Coleman. Count me out on Bourn, but it seems like the Cubs are talking to him.
I think the Cubs are looking like a .500 team right now, with potential to do a little better if they catch lightning in a bottle on some guys like Schierholtz and Stewart and get some step up performances from Castro and Rizzo.
The pitching and defense on this team are very solid, if Jackson and Villanueva sign. If we get lucky with a hitter or two and the right players improve this season, this could be a surprisingly good team.
-
Without upgrades to the offense, I still think the Cubs won't be that good. I think what they are doing is building up enough depth so when the trade deadline hits you aren't seeing Belkin/Rusin/Geramino/Coleman. Count me out on Bourn, but it seems like the Cubs are talking to him.
-
Carrie Muskat @CarrieMuskat
#Cubs close re: deals with free agent RHPs Edwin Jackson, Carlos Villanueva. Nothing finalized
-
So let's see...I think the Cubs' 40 man is still at 40. They have to find spots for Schierholtz and Villanueva for sure, and may also need a spot for Jackson. Seems like a good time for a trade.
-
BobVorwald @BobVorwald
It would such a Cubbie occurrence for the world to end tomorrow just as they were getting some decent starting pitching.
-
With Jackson and Villanueva (cross your fingers) possibly on board, I wonder how big of a play we'll continue to make for J.P. Howell. I hate pigeonholing Travis Wood for full time relief already, but his lefty/righty splits are pretty distinct and would play well in a LH setup role. Plus signing Howell does crowd out guys like Rosario that I think we'd like to keep.
If the Cubs go into next season with the pitching staff as it would be constructed with Jackson and Villanueva, I'd be more than content with that.
-
Jon Heyman @JonHeymanCBS
Carlos Vlllanueva agreement with cubs is $10M for 2 yrs. nice add for chicago.
-
Matt garza @Gdeuceswild
@jcros326 I know something you don't know
Garza and Jackson were teammates with Tampa in 2008, so I wonder if they stay in touch.
-
I teased br a bit about his comment that it probably wouldn't take long for the Jackson decision to be reached. It appears I may need to eat some crow on that.
If his decision is in favor of the Cubs, which Garza appears to believe, and the Cubs also sign Villanueva, that will be some winter, in terms of strengthening a pitifully weak rotation. The Cubs will have a chance to be fun to watch, particularly if Brett Jackson and/or Ian Stewart get their acts together.
-
Buster Olney says the Cubs have made "strong progress" on a 4 year, $52 million deal for Jackson, and that Jackson is "just about off the board".
-
Matt garza @Gdeuceswild
@jcros326 I know something you don't know
He's not left handed?
-
Matt Garza exchange on Twitter:
Matt garza
@Gdeuceswild
Wonder what number Jackson is gonna wear??? #wondering
Jeremy @jcros326
@Gdeuceswild don't Jinx it like you did with Sanchez. Tell you what though pickin up some quality guys theo is
Details Reply Retweet Favorite
Matt garza @Gdeuceswild
@jcros326 I know something you don't know
-
I'm fine with 4/50 for Jackson, but 5/68 for Bourne would be a terrible contract, even without giving up the pick. For a guy whose sole above-average skill is speed, that kind of deal at 29 makes no sense. I don't believe for a second Theo made that offer.
-
I vote "No!" on signing Bourne, Swisher or anybody else that would cost us a draft pick. Our second round pick next year will be earlier than either of our Supplemental Round picks were this year. If we have to sign one or the other, give me Swisher. If Bourn loses his speed, he'll become a $15 per year reserve corner OF.
-
I'm not interested in either player at the price and length that are being talked about. I wouldn't go over 2 years for either player, and that isn't enough to give up a second round draft choice.
-
Yeah, I'd rather they not sign anyone that is going to cost them a draft pick this offseason. But if they're going to do it, Bourn would definitely not be my ideal target.
-
I really don't think the Cubs are in position to be giving up 2nd round picks on anyone right now.
-
I'm probably alone in this...but if the Cubs are going to give up a second round draft pick, I'd rather see them sign Swisher than Bourn. I just am not a big fan of players who are one-dimensional as Bourn. His whole game is speed, and he's a pretty lousy player without that.
I just feel like a 5 year contract for Bourn is really going to backfire on someone.
-
Is he saying the Cubs offered Bourn 5/68.5? I have a hard time believing that.
Quite frankly, as much as the CF market is starting to dry and with a 2nd round pick hanging over him, I think Bourn would probably be happy at 5/68.5 by now.
-
Butts mentioned Cubs offered 4/50 to EJax. Rangers won't match. Bourn 5/68.5, he'd decline that but might make a counter offer.
-
LA Tribune, used to work with Fangraphs. Also matched years that ABTY mentioned about 2 years ago. He also mentioned that teams are calling the Cubs about Samardzija now as well. He doesn't think he'll be traded though. I really hope the keep both Garza/Sam now.
-
Yeah, nice deal if true...but who is Carl Butts?
-
That's a killer deal for Villanueva if true. Wow.
-
Carl Butts @CarlButtsMLB
Cubs have an agreement in place with Carlos Villanueva for 2 year/$8.5MM deal with mutual option for a 3rd year at $6.5MM/$1MM buy-out #Cubs
-
JIM BOWDEN @JimBowdenESPNxm
Cubs now the front runner for Edwin Jackson as negotiations continue with both Cubs and Rangers..4 yrs and approx 52 m is ball park #source
-
We could always put Brett Jackson in center, if that were necessary.
-
Man, I'd love to add a really top notch defensive centerfielder. if we had that, our pitching and defense situation would really be looking terrific.
-
Assuming we're somehow able to land Jackson, Villenueva, and Howell, here's how the pitching staff shapes up. Definitely would have much more depth than we had last year.
ROTATION
Jeff Samardzija
Matt Garza
Edwin Jackson
Scott Baker
Carlos Villenueva
BULLPEN
Carlos Marmol (Closer)
Kyuji Fujikawa (RH Setup)
James Russell (LH Setup)
Shawn Camp (RH Middle)
J.P. Howell (LH Middle)
Scott Feldman (RH Long)
Travis Wood (LH Long)
Actually if we're going to fit someone like Sandy Rosario or Michael Bowden in the bullpen, we'd pretty much have to dump Marmol.
-
Looks like we're at least making en effort to be better. Cant knock that at all and if we do suck we should have some real good trading chips. Im enjoying rebuilding.
-
Ken Rosenthal @Ken_Rosenthal
Sources: #Indians in talks with EJax as well as Swisher. Probably cannot sign both. #Cubs also strong on EJax. Should get at least 4 years.
I've wondered about Swisher's market. If his market is small enough, I'd be kind of interested in him.
-
If the Cubs get both Jackson and Villanueva, it'll be interesting to see what happens next.
We know Garza, Samardzija, and Jackson would fill the first three spots in the rotation. Everything we've heard from the front office makes it sound like Baker and Feldman are being looked at as starters only as well. So that would leave Wood and Villanueva in the pen.
BUT...given Villanueva's strong preference for starting (it was said earlier in the offseason that he would only sign with a team that was going to let him start), it seems unlikely that he'd sign somewhere that didn't guarantee him at least a shot in spring training to compete for a rotation spot. So, I would think that signing both of them would mean at least one of two things: (1) they expect enough problems with Garza's or Baker's rehab that they'd have at least one spot open for competition in spring training, or (2) there is more trade interest in Garza than we'd expect despite his injury.
Chances are, the Cubs will miss out on one or both of them, though. So we probably don't have to worry about any of this.
-
If they DO sign Jackson and Villanueva, it should make for an active July trading session.
Let's see. How many prospects can we get in July for Garza, Baker, Feldman, Jackson and Villenueva?
Especially if we toss in Marmol and Fujisawa.
-
Questionable source, but...
Phil Rogers @ChiTribRogers
While the Cubs are close to signing Carlos Villanueva -- not done yet, despite reports -- they're still in on Edwin Jackson. Want him too.
-
I hope David Kaplan isn't already on Christmas vacation.
-
Heyman is the one who says a Villanueva deal is done, so with this tweet, I'm assuming Jackson would be in play even if they do sign Villanueva:
Jon Heyman @JonHeymanCBS
Edwin Jackson is in play for #cubs. #rangers have some interest. #padres stopped at 3 yrs and bowed out yesterday.
-
HA!
Carrie Muskat @CarrieMuskat
#Cubs are talking to free agent RHP Carlos Villanueva & also RHP Edwin Jackson. Nothing done yet
-
Assuming this deal is happening, I really like him as a swing man. And I really don't like it if he's been guaranteed a rotation spot, because that likely means no Jackson.
I still don't know how good I feel about giving four years to Jackson, so my feelings won't be hurt too badly if Jackson falls through because of this.
We'll have to see, but I'm still not sure this would keep us out of the running for him, though. Feldman and Villenueva are both pretty much used to being swing men by now.
-
Well, it's been a half hour and Heyman is still the only one reporting this as a done deal. Rosenthal is the only other guy who has reported it as close. So I guess we're getting close to the "here we go again" zone.
-
Assuming this deal is happening, I really like him as a swing man. And I really don't like it if he's been guaranteed a rotation spot, because that likely means no Jackson.
-
And the inevitable follow-up that doesn't believe it's a completely done deal"
Ken Rosenthal @Ken_Rosenthal
Source: #Cubs close on Villanueva. Agreement in place, according to @JonHeymanCBS.
-
Jon Heyman @JonHeymanCBS
Cubs agree with villanueva
-
I'm sure this won't drag out too long. ;)
-
http://www.bleachernation.com/2012/12/19/ken-rosenthal-does-not-expect-the-rangers-to-be-the-high-bidder-on-edwin-jackson/
-
http://trsullivan.mlblogs.com/2012/12/18/of-jesuit-logic-edwin-jackson-and-st-thomas-aquinas/
-
Jackson OPS against: 2008 .796, 2009 .726, 2010 .735, 2011 .768, 2012 .719
Sanchez OPS against: 2010 .680, 2011 .711, 2012 .716
Garza OPS against 2008 .683, 2009 .695, 2010 .728, 2011 .654, 2012 .693
-
If you're really wanting to see us bring Jackson in, one thing you have to be concerned about is that Theo so far has been pretty consistently coming in 2nd or 3rd place on these free agents who want multi-year contracts. So far, there's been a reluctance to go all the way on guys like Anibal Sanchez, Jeff Keppinger, Jason Grilli, Mike Adams, etc.
Granted I have no real problem with that, since we're at a point in the rebuilding process where we don't need to be doing a lot of that. Still, if you want free agents, you have to overpay to bring them in, especially in our situation. We obviously didn't want Sanchez badly enough where we were willing to give him a 6th year or pay him $17-18 million per year to make sure we got him in.
So does Theo really want Jackson badly enough to outbid the Rangers for him? The Rangers are in win now mode, have a ton of money to spend, and a clear need for a pitcher like Jackson. Just based on where the Rangers are and Theo's reluctance to pay any price for most of our higher end free agent targets, it doesn't seem especially likely.
-
Yeah, I'd be a lot more concerned about the moving from team to team thing if he had a reputation like Milton Bradley, or he was going for fringe talent as part of salary dumps, or if he'd changed teams a couple times because he'd been non-tendered. But that's not the case...he just happens to be a player who has enough value to be desirable in a trade, but not quite enough to be seen as an off-limits building block.
Over the last four years, Edwin Jackson is 23rd in MLB in fWAR at 14.0. For some context, he's more than a win ahead of Ryan Dempster at #29 (12.9 fWAR) and Anibal Sanchez at #30 (12.7 fWAR). Every name ahead of him is very good, or at least has been for most of the past four years: http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=pit&lg=all&qual=y&type=8&season=2012&month=0&season1=2009&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0
-
In a lot of the trades Jackson has been in, he's been traded for some pretty good players.
He was part of the Curtis Granderson trade where the Tigers got Austin Jackson, Max Scherzer, and Phil Coke. Hard to argue with that trade.
He was traded by the Diamondbacks for Daniel Hudson, who was looking good until he needed Tommy John surgery.
He was traded by the Blue Jays for Colby Rasmus, who was once one of the top prospects in the league.
He may have bounced around a lot, but teams have had to pay a pretty decent price to get him at most stops he's had. Certainly no Milton Bradley/Carlos Zambrano type dump trades among those deals. Pretty much, he's been a pretty in demand pitcher the last few seasons.
-
Rogers on Jackson:
One thing about guys who put together baseball teams for a living: They are open-minded in their approach to evaluating talent. They strip away reputations and examine contributions. They study the signs of improvement and regression.
They’re not always going to reach the right conclusions, of course, and certainly they don’t always chart the right course, as they’re not operating in a vacuum. They’re dealing with an ever-changing inventory of players and a landscape that is impacted by 29 other teams.
It was reported late Tuesday by ESPN and Sirius-SM’s Jim Bowden that the Cubs and Rangers are finalists for the services of Edwin Jackson, with a suggestion that one of them might do what his previous frontrunner, the Padres, would not: give Jackson a four-year contract.
EJax? Four years, maybe $50 million? Even three years, $36 million? Either way, isn’t that a lot for a guy who will be going to his eighth team, the seventh in his last six seasons?
Jackson has been the sort of player that you rent when you need him, not buy for the long haul. But if Theo Epstein and Jed Hoyer are open-minded to Jackson – and the Cubs have not confirmed their involvement with this Scott Boras client – then there must be a reason, just as there was when they offered Anibal Sanchez $75 million over five years last week.
Sure enough, there is. In terms of regular-season performance, Jackson has been almost exactly the same pitcher as Sanchez since July 31, 2010, when he was traded from the Diamondbacks to the White Sox.
At 29, he is older than Sanchez – by less than six months, however – and while Sanchez pitched very well against the Orioles, Yankees and Giants in the just-completed postseason, Jackson was hit hard by the Cardinals. You can argue that Jackson’s regular-season numbers are a tick better than Sanchez’s, however.
Since August, 2010, Sanchez has gone 22-28 with a 3.79 ERA and 1.28 WHIP in 75 starts for the Marlins and Tigers, working 462 2/3 innings. While with the White Sox, Cardinals and Nationals, Jackson was 26-22 with a 3.80 ERA and 1.31 WHIP in 74 starts, working 464 1/3 innings.
Both pitched primarily in the National League, but Jackson made 14 more starts against American League lineups than Sanchez (34-20) in this time. Adjusted for league differential, his ERA and WHIP would be lower than Sanchez’s over the last 2 1/3 seasons.
Jackson’s slider is about as good of a put-away pitch as anything Sanchez has, and he throws harder – a lot harder – than Sanchez. According to the PitchFX information at Fangraphs.com, Jackson hit 100 on a radar gun as recently as 2010 and last year peaked at 97.6 mph with an average of 93.4 on his fastball (fourth best in the NL among qualifiers, behind Jeff Samardzija, Jordan Zimmermann and Edinson Volquez). Sanchez topped out at 96.9 and his fastball averaged 91.5.
Sanchez has shown more pitchability than Jackson. He throws more strikes and uses his secondary pitches (especially a changeup) much more often. But stack the numbers side by side and it’s hard to see why one guy is an emerging star and the other is considered a tease and disappointment waiting to happen.
It’s amazing to me that Jackson has bounced around so much and not become walking scar tissue. He has an even demeanor in the clubhouse and seems popular among his ever-changing cast of teammates.
Last night, I asked an executive who knows Jackson well about him. “Like him,’’ he said. “Been on some good teams. Athletic. Competes well.’’
As for the improvement he’s shown the last two years, he said: “Command better now that he has learned how to harness his fastball. Slider always (his) out pitch. Solid No. 3, 4 starter. Takes ball. I like him personally.’’
How would Jackson respond if he got another chance to spend a few years in the same spot? It seems that Epstein and Hoyer believe he’d be just fine, maybe better.
-
What did Rogers have to say for people that aren't subscribers?
-
Well, you've got to think this won't drag out too long.
Right. These things rarely do. ;)
-
Some interesting comments on Jackson by Rogers:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-your-morning-phil-jackson-pierzynski-floyd-20121219,0,6138037.column
-
The Nationals, Phillies, Cubs, Mariners and Rangers are all interested in free agent reliever J.P. Howell, reports MLB.com's Bill Ladson.
-
Well, you've got to think this won't drag out too long. If he doesn't make his decision in the next day or two, MLB pretty much shuts down until after the new year. Hopefully he wants to get it done before Christmas.
-
The two advantages we have over Texas are we play in the NL and don't play in Arlington.
Still, the Rangers have a lot of money to spend, no state income tax, and their organization is in great shape.
-
Yeah Sanchez has a pretty decent injury history. There's a good part of me that thinks we dodged a bullet not going five years on him.
-
If they get Jackson, I think they're better off than they would've been with Sanchez. He'll be a little cheaper, and there's just something I don't trust about Sanchez.
-
We sorely need him.
-
JIM BOWDEN @JimBowdenESPNxm
Padres are out on Edwin Jackson after refusing to go to 4 years....destination down to Cubs and Rangers
Can't imagine he'll pick the Cubs over the Rangers if the offers are similar...but hope the Cubs can pull it off.
-
One thing Ian Stewart will do is guarantee we get a real good look at Josh Vitters.
We should know what we have with him after next year.
Vitters is unlikely to perform well enough at Iowa that his performance simply demands an early callup in 2013 (as Rizzo's performance did in 2012), and without an early callup, the Cubs still be unlikely to know for sure how well he can do even when they open the 2014 season.
I would be quite surprised if Vitters had 150 ABs for the Chicago Cubs in 2013.
-
I'm afraid we know what we have with him after last year. Right now, if I had to cut one of the two, I would cut Vitters.
I would cut Ian Stewart and try to get what I could in a trade for Josh Vitters and then eat the hot dog before the expiration date.
-
I'm afraid we know what we have with him after last year. Right now, if I had to cut one of the two, I would cut Vitters.
-
Those two slugs will probably give the Cubs the worst production at third base in the game, and that's saying something, considering the state of third basemen in the Majors these days.
The Theocracy has really done a poor job when it comes to third base, IMO.
-
One thing Ian Stewart will do is guarantee we get a real good look at Josh Vitters.
We should know what we have with him after next year.
-
ewe geyes are weigh two pikkee
-
Well, he does have a wrist injury.
-
And underproofread.
-
Underwhelmed
-
IAN_STEWART_2 @IAN_STEWART_2sc
Just wanted to say thanks to Cubs fans for there support of Cubs and I signing on for another year. Hope to bring it for u guys! Go Cubs Go
-
Maybe not
http://www.cubsbythenumbers.com/cubs-all-time.html
-
I'm thinking there was, Dave.
-
Have the Cubs ever had a player wear #0?
I'm thinking no...
On the same note, where is Tuffy?
-
His SECOND TJ surgery?
-
The Cubs also announced Monday their Minor League deal with Korean pitcher Chang-Yong Lim is now official. Lim, 36, has pitched the last 17 seasons in Korea (1996-2007) and Japan (2008-12). He also helped Korea win the bronze medal at the 2000 Summer Olympics and the silver medal in the 2009 World Baseball Classic.
The right-hander, nicknamed "Mister Zero," joined the Yakult Swallows in Japan in 2008 and recorded 128 saves with a 2.09 ERA in 238 relief appearances. He posted at least 28 saves in four straight seasons from 2008-11, including three seasons of 30 saves or more. His 2012 season ended after nine relief appearances because he needed Tommy John ligament replacement surgery, his second, from which he is currently rehabbing.
I hope Lim makes it for no other reason than the awesome nickname.
-
I am wondering if I should bother watching any games in 2013? I think I might have watched a total of 8 innings of Cubs baseball last year.
I know I watched more Nats baseball then that because I actually went to a couple of games.
I just couldn't bear to look at cubs baseball last year.
-
DKnobler @DKnobler
Good suggestion by @ChiTribRogers that the Cubs try for Porcello. Only problem: They did call, and there's no match.
-
Derek Johnson may have had influence in the signing, but it was probably more a case of doing a favor to an old friend in giving him another chance than a belief that Lewis has a good chance of being successful.
-
2007 xFIP 3.63
2008 xFIP 4.65
2009 xFIP 4.37
And none of that changes that he is a RHP with an 89.9 mph fastball. Hell Coleman averaged 90.7. Absent a knock-out breaking pitch, assuming they are still dating it will be good for Des Moines....
-
I wondered that, too, jes. He'd already been released prior to his nice-looking 2010 season. So teams haven't seemed to find him as desirable as his 2010 numbers would suggest.
The Indians sent him down to AAA in 2010 on July 20th after 25 innings with an ERA of 4.18 at the time, and then was called back up at the end of July and finished with an ERA of 2.97 in 36 total innings.
He then had a poor spring training in 2011, "in which he allowed 10 runs on 13 hits in 5 2/3 innings, Lewis was outrighted to Columbus on March 22. He was released on June 24, after recording a 5.14 ERA in 28 innings while with Columbus." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jensen_Lewis Then after his release on June 24th, NO ONE signed the guy until Arizona did at the end of November in 2011.... which would make me think he may have had arm problems which either required minor surgery or which he (and Arizona) thought might be helped with rest.
His FIP was 3.41 in 2010 and his xFIP was 4.53, so his numbers imply a lot of luck in 2010. Fangraphs has his average fastball at 89.9 so unless he has some great breaking stuff he screams Casey Coleman to me.
It is not just 2010, as I mentioned before, he has had an ERA+ of 115 thru four seasons in the majors in 161 relief games at age 26.
Finally, one reason to hope Lewis does well with the Cubs: http://soccer.altweet.com/2010/07/30-hottest-wags-in-major-league.html
-
His FIP was 3.41 in 2010 and his xFIP was 4.53, so his numbers imply a lot of luck in 2010. Fangraphs has his average fastball at 89.9 so unless he has some great breaking stuff he screams Casey Coleman to me.
-
I wondered that, too, jes. He'd already been released prior to his nice-looking 2010 season. So teams haven't seemed to find him as desirable as his 2010 numbers would suggest.
-
Cubs sign former Vanderbilt and Indians pitcher Jensen Lewis to a minor league contract. I imagine Derek Johnson had some influence on this signing.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/l/lewisje01.shtml
I imagine Hoyer's goal of collecting a good number of arms also had something to do with it....
Lewis actually had looked very good thru the 2010 season, with an ERA+ of 115 thru four seasons in the majors in 161 relief games at age 26. Then he spent all of 2011 and 2012 in the minors, and didn't do well at all there in 2011, and decent but not great in 2012. Any idea why he regressed so badly? Injury?
-
Cubs sign former Vanderbilt and Indians pitcher Jensen Lewis to a minor league contract. I imagine Derek Johnson had some influence on this signing.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/l/lewisje01.shtml
-
Interesting comment by ArizonaPhil as to why the Cubs put Stewart on the 40 man roster, but have not yet put Schierholtz there.
The Cubs might not take Stewart off the 40 man roster, and put him on waivers. If no one claims him, they then outright him to Iowa and roster Schierholtz.
It isn't clear why he thinks no one would claim Stewart.
-
Occam's razor leads me to believe it was Sanchez's agent that was the leak. He's the most logical and simplest answer, in my mind at least.
edit...apparently i wasn't the only one thinking that. You beat me in saying it by 15 minutes tho...yes i really am that slow a typer. not really...i just wrote out a bunch of scenario's and then deleted them cuz i didn't want to be arguing with Jes for 3 days about it. I'd feel guilty about stealing Dave's most favoritestest hobby.
-
Occam's Razor isn't always right, but in this case it seems pretty clear what the likely scenario is. The agent clearly feels it doesn't matter if he pisses off Epstein, because if circumstances conspire to make one of his clients a good fit for the Cubs in future, he figures Epstein would be shooting himself in the foot by not bidding. A calculated risk.
I'm pleased that Epstein was willing to go after Sanchez, even if we didn't get him - it tells me he has some grasp of just how bad things are, and how long it would take to try and build a contender without spending heavily in FA. I don't like that we were used as leverage - I wish Theo had pulled the offer as soon as the agent leaked the story - but it is what it is. What I don't want to see is the Cubs overbidding on Jackson - who isn't the pitcher Sanchez is - as an overreaction.
-
dave, two very simple points:
1) I have never even suggested that someone with no motivation is as likely to commit an act as someone with strong motivation, but simply pointed out that the information could have come from several people other than Sanchez' agent, AND that we don't know what motivation many of those folks might have (it is not at all unusual for a government official or corporate exec to serve as the source of leaks involving them because they often believe that doing so curries favor with reporters who will then provide favorable coverage in the future).
2) Sanchez' agent did not have nearly the motivation you attribute to him.
If Dombrowski was not going to want to SEE the contract the Cubs had offered, or would not call Theo (and it is not tampering when the player is not under contract) to check the report, and the mere report itself served the purpose, why would the agent only leak the real figure? Why not leak an offer which was for an additional year and 20% beyond what had actually been offered?
You appear to believe that Dombrowski or other GM's do nothing to determine whether another team has made an offer better than what they had last put on the table, and that as a result, they will believe an annonymous rumor they see reported in a tweet on hear on ESPN or see in a newspaper.... but will not believe what they hear from the agent directly, even though the agent could easily be the source for the rumor.
Hard to believe you don't see the logical problems in that and are simply refusing to acknowledge your position makes no sense, even when you understand that is that case.
-
I can't imagine a situation where Dombrowski would call theo and ask him details about his offers. If that wouldn't be tampering, I can't imagine what would be. And even if he DID call, why in the world would Theo tell him that he had made an offer?
But if you want to maintain that someone with no motivation is as likely to commit an act as someone with strong motivation, go ahead.
-
If I were Dombrowski, I would be more likely to believe a published leak that MIGHT have come from an independent source than I would a claim by someone that had every reason to lie to me.
Perhaps it comes from 45 year of making a living by negotiating with people.
But you are probably right. There is absolutely no reason to "follow the money", or look for other motivation. For instance, everyone knows that when a crime is committed, the last person that the police suspect is the one with the greatest motive.
And in EITHER case, wouldn't you get on the phone to call Theo to see if he had made that offer, or insist on seeing a copy of the contract the other team would have to have presented?
Any agent could leak the news report which you say you would consider more credible than the word of the agent, even though you would have the opportunity to ask the agent directly.... and apparently in neither case would you ask for anything resembling independent confirmation.
Those are not really issues of negotiation, but they are issues of making intelligent decisions.
-
.... Liriano's 2010 season just made me wonder if a different pitching coach and organization could perhaps get something more out of him. I would want Johnson or Bosio see to see if there was something identifiable first that might would make a difference, and if so, then i'd try and give him a contract with a 2014 club option in case he did work out.
And while 2010 could just be a flash-in-the-pan post-surgery career year with no significance, not only was his walk rate the best by far post-surgery(2.72/9, which was pretty close to his great 2006 season), but it coincided with a career best in hr/9(.42), and his best velocity post surgery(94.2 average fastball...93.5 with 2 seam). It also seems like his fastball velocity variates more on a year-to-year basis than most pitchers, perhaps signifying some sort of mechanical issue. His fastball last year was above his career average so it seems like he still has the stuff if someone can figure him out.
Of course, it could be that he's a nut case and not worth the trouble. ....just speculating on a value signing if the price is right and Bosio and/or Johnson see something in him fixable.
Good thinking and analysis, Ray. He's been good post surgery, for the 2010 season and within games or over periods of games. So the velocity and stuff is still there. It's the command, the consistency, and the self-control that have been lacking. I agree with you, if the pitching analysts think they can ID why and think the problem is mechanical and correctible. he could be a good investment. He can tease with some ace-ish stuff, he just can't sustain it.
His reputation here in Minnesota is that he's kind of a head case, and lacks toughness and the mental game. Keyed up too much in some situations, keyed up too little in others, can look great for several innings or several starts and then lose it fast, particularly if an umpiring call or an error goes wrong. Whether that reputation is valid, I have no idea, fans and radio shows often have unfair caricatures of players.
-
If I were Dombrowski, I would be more likely to believe a published leak that MIGHT have come from an independent source than I would a claim by someone that had every reason to lie to me.
Perhaps it comes from 45 year of making a living by negotiating with people.
But you are probably right. There is absolutely no reason to "follow the money", or look for other motivation. For instance, everyone knows that when a crime is committed, the last person that the police suspect is the one with the greatest motive.
-
And if you think that the agent telling Dombrowske that he had another offer would be as effective as the press telling Dombroski the same thing, I am glad you are not the one doing the negotiations.
davep, actually think about it for just a moment, and that is really all that it takes.
If the agent tells reporters he has an offer of 5 years at $75M/year and they report it, you contend that is more likely to get Dombrowski to cough up more money than if the agent tells Dombrowski that the Cubs have made that offer. (I am assuming that you agree that either way Dombrowski is going to be told of the offer and given the opportunity to top the offer, that you are not suggesting that the only way Dombrowski was going to learn of the offer was if the media reported it.)
Why?
You offer no explanation for that conclusion, but you seem to hold it fiercely.
You are a reasonably articulate guy.
Explain it.
-
I gather that Jes must have suggested that Dempster was or could have been the leak in his faux trade. Problem is that he was the guy most upset about the leak. He clearly was not to blame for that. Not that it matters that much, at this point, but just in the interest of accuracy ... for those who care about such things.
-
He certainly have impressed upon Marmol that he should keep things secret. But even so, Marmol might have let something slip. He is really at fault because he didn't kill Marmol, thus eliminating his ability to leak.
And you are right that he must not have impressed upon Dempster and Marmol that they shouldn't leak. Everyone knows that if he had just impressed that upon them, it would have been impossible for them to disregard him and leak otherwise.
And if you think that the agent telling Dombrowske that he had another offer would be as effective as the press telling Dombroski the same thing, I am glad you are not the one doing the negotiations.
-
dave, none of those examples is eliminated.
All happened under Theo.
And if he had been really concerned about not having anything leaked, he could have impressed on Marmol and Dempster not to leak. He apparently did not.
But you keep going back to the agent as having a motivation to leak it, suggesting that he "would make a lot of money leaking that same information,"
How?
If it is not leaked, he still goes back to Dombrowski with the Cubs offer, the same as he did when the offer was leaked. Not a thing would have been changed.
How is it that the leak played to the advantage of Sanchez' agent?
-
Although TJ surgery is very successful in restoring a pitcher's velocity and even movement, one thing it often does NOT restore is the pin point command that they may have had previous to the surgery. A case in point that most of us are familiar with is that of Kerry Wood, who went on to have a decent career after his surgery, but never returned to the "Hall of Fame" kind of production that he seemed to have before it.
Some doctors have said that although the tendon taken from the leg serves the purpose as far as strength is concerned, it just doesn't have the same "feel" in some pitchers to allow them the same level of control over their fine movements. But whatever the reason, I would be very reluctant to commit a lot of money to a pitcher who hasn't returned to form 4 years after the surgery.
This is true and most likely the cause of his troubles. Liriano's 2010 season just made me wonder if a different pitching coach and organization could perhaps get something more out of him. I would want Johnson or Bosio see to see if there was something identifiable first that might would make a difference, and if so, then i'd try and give him a contract with a 2014 club option in case he did work out.
And while 2010 could just be a flash-in-the-pan post-surgery career year with no significance, not only was his walk rate the best by far post-surgery(2.72/9, which was pretty close to his great 2006 season), but it coincided with a career best in hr/9(.42), and his best velocity post surgery(94.2 average fastball...93.5 with 2 seam). It also seems like his fastball velocity variates more on a year-to-year basis than most pitchers, perhaps signifying some sort of mechanical issue. His fastball last year was above his career average so it seems like he still has the stuff if someone can figure him out.
Of course, it could be that he's a nut case and not worth the trouble. And definitely not worth a big multi-year contract to find out...just speculating on a value signing if the price is right and Bosio and/or Johnson see something in him fixable.
-
"After Dempster, Marmol and now Sanchez, you may be seeing more ability than I do."
We know that the Marmol leak came from Marmol himslef, so that eliminates one of the names mentioned,
We know that the Dempster leak came from the Atlanta front office, so that eliminates the second name on the list.
There wasn't even a whisper of rumor that the Cubs were negotiation with Sanchez, so that indicates that the Cubs front office can keep things quiet if they want to. Just as there were few prior reports when they traded for Rizzo, Stewart, Dempster to the Rangers, Soto, and a handful of others.
It is quite possible that someone that had NO reason to leak, actually DID leak. But when one person has NO reason to leak information, while a SECOND person would make a lot of money leaking that same information, you are a fool if you bet on the first guy.
-
Dombrowski had to increase his offer by 1 year and $32 million. He had nothing to gain by letting it out. The Cubs didn't have his name on the dotted line, they had nothing to gain.
Dombrowski also had nothing to lose by letting it out.
He wanted to sign Sanchez. To sign him he had to increase his offer, and apparently he decided to increase it enough that he thought the Cubs would not come back and top it.
Whether the Cubs' offer to Sanchez was reported or not, Dombrowski would have had to increase the offer to sign Sanchez.
Even with Theo, the fact that the Cubs' offer was reported before the signing was final changed nothing in the negotiations with Sanchez. The only possible effect was to let Garza know that the Cubs were willing to go that high, but if it had NOT been reported, Garza would still have seen what Sanchez and other comparable pitchers were getting, so it likely would not be a meaningful factor in Garza's demands if the Cubs try to extend him.
Did the agent leak it?
Perhaps, but the idea that everyone else would have somehow been hurting themselves by leaking, and that therefor the agent MUST have been the source, really doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
-
We can rule out Dombrowski, since he could not be in on the Cubs negotiations, and would have absolutely no motivation to reveal it if he DID find out.
Whether the information leaked or not was doing to make no difference to what Dombrowski was going to offer, meaning that he might have let someone know for any number of reasons -- doing so was not going to hurt him or the Tigers.
Perhaps he liked a reporter, or perhaps he had a grudge against Theo and wanted to make him look bad.... and for each of the principles we can identify, as I mentioned before there would be at least one assistant, secretary or aid who was also going to know what was going on.
Plenty of different avenues for leaks.
And the Cubs FO certainly have shown the ability to keep secrets.
After Dempster, Marmol and now Sanchez, you may be seeing more ability than I do.
That is three rather significant leaks, and the only commonality in all of them is that the Cubs front office was involved each time.
Now they might not have been responsible any of the three times, but after three times in less than 6 months, it might make sense to wonder.
-
Although TJ surgery is very successful in restoring a pitcher's velocity and even movement, one thing it often does NOT restore is the pin point command that they may have had previous to the surgery. A case in point that most of us are familiar with is that of Kerry Wood, who went on to have a decent career after his surgery, but never returned to the "Hall of Fame" kind of production that he seemed to have before it.
Some doctors have said that although the tendon taken from the leg serves the purpose as far as strength is concerned, it just doesn't have the same "feel" in some pitchers to allow them the same level of control over their fine movements. But whatever the reason, I would be very reluctant to commit a lot of money to a pitcher who hasn't returned to form 4 years after the surgery.
One reason why we got Vizcaino for such a low price is because until he starts to pitch in live games, we won't have a good idea of whether or not he will have the great command that he needs to become a top pitcher. And one reason why the Cubs seem quite high on Rondon is that in the Winter League, he IS exhibiting that command.
-
I'd like to see Derek Johnson(and maybe Bosio) take a look at some video of Liriano and see if there is anything he sees that might explain Liriano's great inconsistency since his surgery. If there are any fixable flaws, he'd definitely be worth a flyer. He had a low walk rate before the injury, and actually a decent one in his one decent year since(2010...fip of 2.66 that year also). You'd think there might be some noticeable difference that a keen eye could recognize and put to right.
-
$80 million certainly doesn't buy a #1 starter nowadays.
-
Perhaps because when the increased revenue starts coming to the teams next year, the free agent prices are very likely to soar far beyond current prices.
-
I aint one bit tore up that we didnt get Anibal.
We're gonna suck anyway so why give a pitcher who isnt even a legit #1 80 million dollars?
-
Dombrowski had to increase his offer by 1 year and $32 million. He had nothing to gain by letting it out. The Cubs didn't have his name on the dotted line, they had nothing to gain. Sanchez/his agent got the place, an extra year, an extra $32 million. I wonder who let it slip.
-
We can rule out Dombrowski, since he could not be in on the Cubs negotiations, and would have absolutely no motivation to reveal it if he DID find out. And the Cubs FO certainly have shown the ability to keep secrets.
Of course, it is POSSIBLE that someone other than the agent leaked it. But he certainly had the most to gain by it.
-
If you want to find out where the leak came from, follow the money. The one that had the most to gain from the leaks in this situation was the agent of Sanchez.
While he may have had the most to gain, that doesn't mean it is more likely than not to have been him. There would have been a number of people aware of what was happening, Hoyer, Epstein, possibly Ricketts, Sanchez, the agent of Sanchez, and likely at least Dombrowski with the Tigers. That is the likely minimum, and most likely there also would have been an assistant or two for each of those named.
-
One thought that Villanueva reminded me of:
I think it's a bad policy to promise guys starting jobs. Like no-trade clauses, promising a guy a job as a starter, is bad and undesirable policy.
You can certainly sell the landscape of your roster, and explain how it certainly seems open to compete for a starting job and to win it. And you can certainly promise that you will open him up to that competition when spring camp begins. But things can change, and management/Sveum shouldn't be locked into using a guy as a starter if there are reasons to use him otherwise. Wood might improve, and if everything was working out great perhaps Wood, Baker, Garza, and Feldman might all look better than Villanueva. Or perhaps by July Vizcaino will be flashing more promising stuff than Villanueva will ever throw.
If a guy is good enough, he probably doesn't need to demand that promise. I don't think Sanchez or greinke needed any such promises. Promise the opportunity to compete for a job, that's fine, but don't promise starting.
-
The Cubs like him more than Feldman and went to him first. He wanted 3 years and the Cubs moved on to Feldman. Maybe he is backing off that now.
Interesting. He'd certainly help the Cubs rotation in their quest to run away from the league in HR-allowed. 25HR in 125 innings last year, wow.
He's been kind of inconsistent and consistent in his career: four of his last five years, his ERA's have ranged in the 4.04-4.61 range, so there's some consistency there that befits his career ERA+ of 100. But he's had some extreme bounce in his walk rates, K-rates, and HR rates. If you could get the better end of all three, you'd have a good pitcher.
-
The Cubs like him more than Feldman and went to him first. He wanted 3 years and the Cubs moved on to Feldman. Maybe he is backing off that now.
-
I wonder if we like Villanueva on a short term deal better than Jackson on a 4-5 year deal.
-
Carlos Villanueva - R - Blue Jays
Free agent Carlos Villanueva wants any interested team to guarantee him 30 starts next season.
Villanueva has been shuffled in and out of the rotation most of his career, but he pitched well enough as a starter in 2012 that some team should be willing to grant him his request. It could be the Blue Jays, as general manager Alex Anthopoulous said he'd have no problem relying on the righty for 30 starts. "Absolutely, I’ve never doubted Carlos," Anthopoulous said.
I wouldn't have a problem with Villanueva. He kind of fits in with some of the intriguing small ball type signings we've had this offseason. It also would definitely move Travis Wood to the bullpen, so that helps with our pitching depth. With Wood as our #6 starter, that should help keep us from relying on Jason Belken/Justin Germano types next season.
It also seems like signing him would pretty much put us out of the running for Edwin Jackson if that's something we wanted to do, since we've also promised Baker and Feldman rotation spots.
-
Kaplan said yesterday that he had heard Cubs were in on Carlos Villanueva. I'm curious what others here think of him.
-
If you want to find out where the leak came from, follow the money. The one that had the most to gain from the leaks in this situation was the agent of Sanchez.
Agree with Dave. And to the extent that Sanchez' agent told Nightengale that there was a deal with the Cubs, and did so as a means of driving up Sanchez' price, he may be a short-term winner, but I'm not so sure about the long-term. I don't know about Hoyer, but Epstein has a reputation as being anything but a softy. He may not say anything, but (as Curt suggested) he will remember and it will affect his dealings with that agent in the future. Very possibly other GMs as well.
-
If you want to find out where the leak came from, follow the money. The one that had the most to gain from the leaks in this situation was the agent of Sanchez.
-
Jon Heyman @JonHeymanCBS
a couple rival execs said aghast over anibal's $80M/5 yr #tigers deal. better bet than cj wilson, i say. #aghast
-
I'm disappointed, but then again, I'm still not a big fan of giving out 5 year contracts to starting pitchers unless it's absolutely necessary.
I'm not a fan of them until that signing would make a likely also ran into a probable playoff team, or better. Sanchez would not have done that for 2013. The only thing that would have made the signing possibly reasonable is that Sanchez should still have at least 2 or 3 strong seasons after the time when the Cubs likely would be in the mix for the playoffs. Wouldn't have been a terrible signing. Also not a terrible loss in not signing him.
The price tag for Jackson just went up, though. I'm interested in Jackson, but I'm not interested in overpaying him.
The fact that the Cubs appear not to have increased their offer from $75M indicates the Theocracy also is not interested in overpaying anyone, but will instead make a rational determination as to a player's value to the Cubs, and not allow emotion to push them beyond that figure.
Garza has tweeted welcome messages to both Haren and Sanchez now. He's bad luck.
Garza had to have been happy to see the Cubs bidding on Sanchez, because it likely means more a bigger payday for him when his next contract is negotiated.
-
Cubs seem to be being played right now by some players to drive up another team's offer. I don't think that's wise with this leadership team. Together their memories will be long.
-
Well, it's nice to know that Bob Nightengale lets agents use him like this. Now we can ignore anything he breaks until a more reliable source (like Rosenthal, or Gammons, or bigbird) runs with it.
Pretty much, if Kaplan hasn't confirmed it, it means it hasn't happened yet.
-
Well, hopefully Jackson won't drag anything out too far. With Sanchez and Dempster off the board in the last 24 hours, you've got to think that the Jackson and Lohse dominoes could fall at any time.
With Sanchez back in Detroit (at such a high price too), I bet Porcello is gone by the time the season starts. If the Cubs don't get Jackson, he'd be the next most interesting name to me.
-
Hopefully that's Jackson.
The price tag for Jackson just went up, though. I'm interested in Jackson, but I'm not interested in overpaying him.
-
It will be interesting to see what happens next. Part of what Kap said (who is about the best Cub source around, it seems) is that there was another FA waiting to hear from the Cubs based on the outcome of the Sanchez negotiations. Hopefully that's Jackson.
-
Garza has tweeted welcome messages to both Haren and Sanchez now. He's bad luck.
Yeah probably goes to show that even our top players don't know a whole lot more than we do when rumors like this go around.
-
Post-deal rationalization to make us feel better for losing out:
Anibal Sanchez has looked strong this preseason, but the 29-year-old told Wilmer Reina at the Venezuelan daily La Verdad that his history of shoulder problems is more than just a memory. "I've never pitched without pain. There's always a small problem with something," Sanchez said. "I have five scars inside my shoulder, and some nerve has to be touching those." Sanchez has bounced back from three injury-shortened campaigns to log 190-plus solid innings in 2010 and 2011, but he said last month the team has yet to approach him about keeping him off the the free agent market next winter. Back in January, MLBTR's Ben Nicholson-Smith analyzed Sanchez as an extension candidate.
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/03/spanish-links-sanchez-hanley-contreras.html
-
Garza has tweeted welcome messages to both Haren and Sanchez now. He's bad luck.
-
Well, that was disappointing. But, that's life. I'm sure Theo & Jed are more frustrated than anyone here. Hand wringing is pointless - time to move on.
I'm disappointed, but then again, I'm still not a big fan of giving out 5 year contracts to starting pitchers unless it's absolutely necessary. Sanchez would have been a nice addition, but with where the Cubs are in the rebuilding process, it's not a move we absolutely needed to make either. One less risky long term contract to worry about.
Nice job by Agent Gene Mato of manipulating the market. I guess he earned his slice of the contract.
-
Well, it's nice to know that Bob Nightengale lets agents use him like this. Now we can ignore anything he breaks until a more reliable source (like Rosenthal, or Gammons, or bigbird) runs with it.
-
Buster Olney @Buster_ESPN
The postscripts to the Anibal Sanchez negotiations will be interesting. Because it's clear that there's a lot of misremembering going on.
-
Well, that was disappointing. But, that's life. I'm sure Theo & Jed are more frustrated than anyone here. Hand wringing is pointless - time to move on.
-
Bob Nightengale @BNightengale
The #Tigers original offer was four years, $48 million so they made dramatic increase to get Sanchez at $80 million
-
Agent Gene Mato Sanchez agrees to 5 year,$80 million deal w #Tigers
-
This one was most likely the agent in order to pressure the Tigers to up their offer.
-
The Cubs can claim all they want that they have nothing to do with these premature leaks...but it's happened to the Cubs three times in the past 6 months now...and I can't remember the last time a deal was reported as done but fell through for some other team.
I think it has a lot to do with the Twitter age we live in. All these idiot reporters have to be the first on Twitter to break the news, and they often jump the gun before the team is completed.
Still, the Cubs probably need to find out who's leaking all this info to the media.
-
Sign Edwin Jackson now...he's 90-95% of Anibal Sanchez for about 60% of the price.
-
The Cubs can claim all they want that they have nothing to do with these premature leaks...but it's happened to the Cubs three times in the past 6 months now...and I can't remember the last time a deal was reported as done but fell through for some other team.
-
Jon Heyman tweet: Cubs are out on anibal. #tigers look like tigers are likely winner
-
Ken Rosenthal @Ken_Rosenthal
Source: #Cubs increase five-year offer to Anibal Sanchez to $77.5M. #Tigers at $75M. Negotiations continue.
Retweeted by Paul Sullivan
-
I think they're going to have pretty phenomenal defense. If the Cubs sign Sanchez, their defense could bring a pretty good rotation pretty close to that phenomenal level.
Man, I didn't realize it was possible to overdose on Cubbie Cool-aid this time of year.
-
I think they're going to have pretty phenomenal defense. If the Cubs sign Sanchez, their defense could bring a pretty good rotation pretty close to that phenomenal level.
-
If we sign Mike Adams and figure out a way to acquire an above average defensive CF, you'd have a team with very strong pitching and defense, and that might be good enough to put a contender on the field.
They're going to have to have phenomenal pitching and defense to compensate for that offense. I think .500 is the more attainable goal rather than playoff contender.
-
A couple of thoughts on Sanchez now that I'm actually in front of my computer and can type all this out.
1. Just honestly, five year big money contracts to pitchers scare the crap out of me, so if the Tigers decide to match or exceed the offer to Sanchez, it won't hurt my feelings all that much. Sanchez probably is a solid value, especially in a world where Zack Greinke is making $25 million per year, and he makes more sense for the Cubs than any other big ticket free agent out there. Still, pitchers get hurt easily (and Sanchez does have an injury history), and they can lose effectiveness just about any time. Five years is a long time for either of those things not to happen to a starting pitcher.
Pretty much, I'd like to see him accept our offer, but if he doesn't, that's one less risky contract to not have to worry about.
2. If we do get Sanchez, that really changes the outlook for next season obviously. If we sign Mike Adams and figure out a way to acquire an above average defensive CF, you'd have a team with very strong pitching and defense, and that might be good enough to put a contender on the field. It'd at least be good enough to give us a shot to finish above .500, and that would certainly be a nice thing to see after last season's debacle.
-
why cant you do both?
-
At some point the "We're a bad team that shouldn't spend money to get better" reasoning begins to wear a little thin.
Except that is not the reasoning, and now is not yet time to start spending heavily.
Not yet having the foundation pieces in place to warrant major spending is quite different from simply being "a bad team."
-
ABTY said if Sanchez comes or not Jackson is possible as well.
-
I think Jackson is the fall back option, too. Looks like they want one more solid pitcher, rather than someone they're looking to create value from. Looking at fangraphs and they have pretty similar profiles...both walked less than 3 per 9 the last 2 years. Jackson a tick lower walk rate in 2011, Sanchez half a walk per game lower in 2012. Jackson better home run rate in 2011, Sanchez in 2012, with both roughly around 1. Batting average does the tipsy topsy rotating thingy, too. Sanchez took home the emmy for k rate in 2011 with two and a half more per 9 in 2011 while Jackson brought home the oscar with a quarter k per 9 more in 2012 with both a shade under 8. Similar ground ball rates. Jackson does have a couple extra mph on the fastball though. Jackson had a touch higher era and fip both years.
Guess I coulda done a bunch of copying and pasting, but notes are good enough...not sure Sanchez is that much better a pitcher than Jackson, excluding makeup.
Really similar.
Odds are I made a mistake or 9 in there somewhere.
-
I think some of being involved with Sanchez has got to be the fact that 75/5 or even 80/5 in this financial climate is a real bargain. It just feels odd to type 75 million for 5 years is a bargain for Anibal Sanchez. Are two Anibal Sanchez's approximately equal to 1 Zach Grenke?
-
According to Kapman, Cubs in on Adams and Villanueva.
-
Fallback might be Jackson?
-
But the sense that there is another agent engaged, combined with the reported $75/5 offer, suggests that the cubs are pretty serious about adding a starter involving serious money, perhaps higher than the Maholm/Baker/Feldman class.
So maybe they'll either end up signing Sanchez or somebody else interesting?
Maybe. Or maybe the agent represents someone who is only attractive if they can't get Sanchez, a fall back who is considerably inferior to Sanchez. Who knows?
-
David Kaplan @thekapman
Cubs told another agent for a free agent pitcher they were down the road w/Sanchez + would call if they lost out. Agent hasn't heard back.
....
Wow, interesting stuff tonight. I'm with you, Ron, this probably won't work and Detroit will probably end up paying the match. (Although I can't imagine they are sitting great budget-wise, are they?)
But the sense that there is another agent engaged, combined with the reported $75/5 offer, suggests that the cubs are pretty serious about adding a starter involving serious money, perhaps higher than the Maholm/Baker/Feldman class.
So maybe they'll either end up signing Sanchez or somebody else interesting?
-
Also, I'd be VERY interested in a deal for Bourjos. The Angels are a team without much leverage as it's clear he is not in their starting plans. Meanwhile most of the CF market has dried up with all the CF trades and signings. Finally, Bourjos underperformed in limited AB's last year. Don't know how much he'd cost, but I don't think there will be a better time to buy.
-
sucks to be used for leverage...sorta what it's starting to look like anyway.
-
The more I look at his numbers, the more excited I get about a potential Sanchez acquisition. His BB rate is systematically dropping, while his strike rate and velocity are rising. 5/75 would be awesome. I'd be happy to give him a vesting team option year based on IP, too.
yeah, i thought the same thing about the velocity. It's not often you can sign a pitcher who has reached free agency, and his fastball velocity his free agent year is higher than his career average, if only by a tick. Hopefully moving to a smaller park won't jump his hr rate too much.
-
The more I look at his numbers, the more excited I get about a potential Sanchez acquisition. His BB rate is systematically dropping, while his strike rate and velocity are rising. He has also acheived his recent numbers in front of below average to awful defenses. 5/75 would be awesome. I'd be happy to give him a vesting team option year based on IP, too. 200 IP in the last year of his contract, or 350 over the previous two years.
-
At some point the "We're a bad team that shouldn't spend money to get better" reasoning begins to wear a little thin. In the absence of any compelling reason why we should be worried about spending a little, I remain unmoved by concerns about the Sanchez offer.
-
Also, if I'm Theo and they thought they had a deal, I would immediately go public and tell everyone that we have pulled our offer from the table. Then he can go back to the Tigers for whatever their last offer was. That will be the last time the Cubs get used for leverage.
-
Theo and company may be really smart guys, but they suck at negotiations. May end up being a good thing though. I'm not sure Sanchez is the guy we should spend that much money on right now.
-
We're pitching poor with money to burn.
Im fine with it.
We may even be half decent next year?
-
Sounds like better than 50-50 chance Sanchez will end up with the Tigers, though who knows? One thing I believe is true: Theo/Jed will not make a decision based on panic. They will have established what they believe Sanchez' value is to the Cubs and will not go above that, whatever the Tigers do. Personally, I hope the Cubs get Sanchez, but I'm not very hopeful.
-
DKnobler DKnobler @
Tigers are believed to have resisted going to a 5-year offer for Sanchez. With Cubs involved, it may take that for them to get him.
-
that is a very good point....much like with Castro, buy at a perceived point of low value if Cubs are fairly confident in his recovery. A team is also more likely to give up extra value for Garza if Cubs did trade him at some point in future if there was a contract beyond 2013. Really a no lose scenario if healthy and he'll sign at a fair price.
Even if he doesn't recover, given the inflation of salaries and the fact that fewer big name players are reaching the free agent market, it's a worthwhile risk to take. Cubs have extra cash on hand right now - offer Garza a front loaded deal that gives him more real value (staving off inflation) while securing the Cubs' long term financial flexibility.
-
That's the price you pay for fielding a AAAA team.
-
Bob Nightengale @BNightengale 3m
The #Cubs, who thought they had a deal with Sanchez, are still waiting. The #Tigers are indeed being given last chance to match.
-
Other than Fujikawa, just about all of our moves this offseason have come out of nowhere haven't they?
-
5/$75 would be a very fair deal for Sanchez. He's a good pitcher, borderline very good, and he fits Theo's creed about signing FAs when they still have peak years left. He has a chance to be decent long enough for it to matter for the Cubs, or to be a very good trade asset.
-
Wow that did come out of nowhere.
Of course, it's not a done deal until Kaplan says it is.
-
Whether or not the goal is to trade him, extending Garza would be a good idea, if he's willing. You get a discount on his services, making him a more marketable asset if he recovers fully. If he doesn't, you're still buying at a discount. Obviously the Cubs' medical assessment of the situation would play into things...
that is a very good point....much like with Castro, buy at a perceived point of low value if Cubs are fairly confident in his recovery. A team is also more likely to give up extra value for Garza if Cubs did trade him at some point in future if there was a contract beyond 2013. Really a no lose scenario if healthy and he'll sign at a fair price.
-
Rosenthal on Cubs and Sanchez:
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/chicago-cubs-free-agent-RHP-anibal-sanchez-hot-stove-121312
-
Per Kaplan, Cubs told another free agent they were "down the road" with Sanchez and would call back if they lost out. That agent hasn't heard back, but it's not done yet.
I'm just going to assume it's falling through, and maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised later.
-
David Kaplan @thekapman
Cubs told another agent for a free agent pitcher they were down the road w/Sanchez + would call if they lost out. Agent hasn't heard back.
David Kaplan @thekapman
After talking w/some very good sources it appears Cubs deal with Sanchez is not yet done. Tigers still in play but Cubs trying to finalize.
-
Whether or not the goal is to trade him, extending Garza would be a good idea, if he's willing. You get a discount on his services, making him a more marketable asset if he recovers fully. If he doesn't, you're still buying at a discount. Obviously the Cubs' medical assessment of the situation would play into things...
-
Ugh. Can the Cubs do one major deal without letting the word get out early?
Not sure how they have been "letting the word get out early." The Dempster report obviously wasn't from the Cubs. The Marmol report was from Marmol. Have there been others?
-
if the Anibal signing is true, with the supposedly much improved bullpen, and if Jackson really does realize his potential, and Stewart can be non sucky at 3rd, this might be a decent team. However, I'd still trade Soriano for a longterm piece if the opportunity presented itself, because the long term outlook is still priority one. I wouldn't mind Brown if it's done soon. I feel pretty confident that he has a better chance of improving over the offseason working with the cub's player development people...i wonder when the last time that was the case.
Does this increase likelihood they extend Garza instead of trading him?
-
Bob Nightengale seems convinced it's done. Other tweets doubt it's done; some sound like it's close (Morosi), while others think the Tigers are still right there (Heyman). Another long night of refreshing webpages for Cubs fans.
-
Anibal has been worth 12 wins last 3 years. Shields, the guy who netted the best available hitting prospect in baseball, has been worth 11.2. An AAV of 15 for Sanchez would be a great deal.
A rotation of Shark, Sanchez, Garza, Baker, and Wood/Feldman would be awesome.
-
Jon Heyman @JonHeymanCBS
#tigers are very much in anibal mix, sources say. game not over yet.
Ugh. Can the Cubs do one major deal without letting the word get out early?
-
Jon Heyman @JonHeymanCBS
anibal's agent Gene Mato said he's still talking to other teams. #tigers have been involved all winter, like cubs
I should say, I'm not a big Anibal fan (and still kind of scared by previous shoulder problems), so that's why I say overpay. But as far as market prices go, that's not bad.
-
If it happens, that's not an overpay, that's a bargain. Think about what guys like Demp and Haren just got. Market value for wins is about 5 million. Anibal is easily a 3 win player and not so old so as to project heavy decline by contract's end.
-
But there are some people saying the deal is not done, and we know how that has played out recently. So don't get too excited yet.
-
Cubs sign Anibal Sanchez, 5 years, $75 million? Wow, that was from out of nowhere. Probably an overpay, but maybe awesome.
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/12/13/the-cubs-sign-anibal-sanchez/
-
So I don't want to give up on trading in July because we're 49-56, we're only seven games behind the wildcard, and we don't want to waive the white flag.
I agree. I'd hate for the new administration to start trading valuable prospects just for the sake of being competitive.
-
Agree, JR, guys who are pitching minor-league relief are very rarely going to make it. Rhoderic, Batista, I don't think those guys are of much interest. I think there are few enough good pitching prospects that good-armed prospects pretty much always get a chance in the rotation. If you're pitching relief in Daytona already, something's wrong. Whether that is control ("oh, Mateo has closer velocity and a sharp slider, he's got two-pitch late-inning stuff...."), or arm (Beliveau wasn't viewed as much of a power guy...).
Also agree with ray, that if the Cubs are surprisingly competitive that will be a good thing because it will manifest that some younger guys are working out. If Castro, Samardzija, Wood, Castillo, Jackson, Barney, Stewart, and Wood show real improvement, we'll win more games, and if all of them just stay at their 2012 level or worse, we won't.
I also agree with jes, though, that I don't want to abandon "procurement" mode. I want to be flipping veterans for young talent, whether that be Feldman or DeJesus or Soriano or Garza or Baker or Marmol or Fuji or whomever. So I don't want to give up on trading in July because we're 49-56, we're only seven games behind the wildcard, and we don't want to waive the white flag.
But if DeJesus/Feldman/Soriano/Garza/Marmol/Fuji/Baker are playing well enough to command attention in the trade market, they'll probably help us to win some games, too. So winning will not only correlate with good development news for young players, but will also correlate with good trade value news for our veterans.
Are we sure craig isn't really a politician, or planning to become one agreeing with everyone(even Jes) like that? I'm getting a vision of the future........"From professor to president, featuring assassination attempts funded by congressmen for being too open minded; funded by kids for putting an end to lollipop stealing; funded by men, because how can they cheat in good conscious if the commander-in-chief doesn't; funded by women, because without cheating men and the ability to blackmail, they lose all the power they've accumulated in the last half century; funded by cardinals fans, because he banned baseball games in St. Louis, thereby forcing them to relocate to Los Angeles; and funded by the Dodgers and their fans because they had to declare bankruptcy and fold when a real team arrived and they couldn't afford their half billion dollar yearly payroll. The Lifetime channel presents the story of a man affectionately nicknamed Swiss Cheese Crag, the US's 45th president, in our movie of the week. Sponsored commercial free by the three-peat(a Pat Riley trademark, please send him a dollar for the honor of reading/hearing the phrase or risk lawsuit) Chicago Cubs."
-
The rare exceptions are guys like Cashner and Zych who were drafted as college relief specialists who were thought to have to the tools to be good as relievers. I agree that starters who can't cut it rarely make it as relievers. Unless they're named Eckersley.
-
Agree, JR, guys who are pitching minor-league relief are very rarely going to make it. Rhoderic, Batista, I don't think those guys are of much interest. I think there are few enough good pitching prospects that good-armed prospects pretty much always get a chance in the rotation. If you're pitching relief in Daytona already, something's wrong. Whether that is control ("oh, Mateo has closer velocity and a sharp slider, he's got two-pitch late-inning stuff...."), or arm (Beliveau wasn't viewed as much of a power guy...).
Also agree with ray, that if the Cubs are surprisingly competitive that will be a good thing because it will manifest that some younger guys are working out. If Castro, Samardzija, Wood, Castillo, Jackson, Barney, Stewart, and Wood show real improvement, we'll win more games, and if all of them just stay at their 2012 level or worse, we won't.
I also agree with jes, though, that I don't want to abandon "procurement" mode. I want to be flipping veterans for young talent, whether that be Feldman or DeJesus or Soriano or Garza or Baker or Marmol or Fuji or whomever. So I don't want to give up on trading in July because we're 49-56, we're only seven games behind the wildcard, and we don't want to waive the white flag.
But if DeJesus/Feldman/Soriano/Garza/Marmol/Fuji/Baker are playing well enough to command attention in the trade market, they'll probably help us to win some games, too. So winning will not only correlate with good development news for young players, but will also correlate with good trade value news for our veterans.
-
I've wondered if one of the reasons they still seem to be interested in a legitimate starter (not just a swing man) is because they like Wood in a relief role. Maybe they see him as the next Marshall or Downs.
-
A starting pitcher is much more valuable than a relief pitcher. In the past, if a minor league pitcher had a high ceiling, most teams were going to begin grooming him as a starter, and move him to relief only if it becomes apparent that he can't fill that role. Then they move him to relief to try to salvage what they can.
Recently, however, it seem that teams are looking at grooming some pitchers as relievers right from the start, especially if they envision him as a potential closer. That seems to be the situation with the Cubs and Tony Zych and Kevin Rhoderick. Another recent trend is the use of "piggybacking" for minor league pitchers. When you pitch Archer for 4 innings and then Cabrera for 4 innings, you can move either one to starter or reliever with very little retraining.
-
Also surprised on beliveau. I think it was a foolish idea to have called him up in the first place. What was the purpose? If a guy is fringy enough to waive him after 17 innings, why call him up at all? I think that was a poor decision by Hoyer.
-
One other thing is that it pretty much means Russell is the only lefty pegged for the pen so far, unless we're going to push Travis Wood there or give someone like Brooks Raley a shot. One of Hoyer's goals for the offseason was to take pressure off of Russell, so unless there's another move to be made this offseason, it looks like it will come down to Wood, Raley, and perhaps Rusin.
I get the feeling Raley is pegged for a career as a reliever anyway, so we might be ready to start grooming him for that role.
-
BTW one thing this leads me to that I've wanted to bring up for a while, I'm starting to think true relief prospects are more of a rare thing than we appreciate.
The Cubs' most successful relief pitchers from the farm started out as rotation prospects - guys like Carlos Marmol, Sean Marshall, James Russell, Scott Downs, Michael Wuertz, and Will Ohman.
Guys who have been more or less pure relief prospects that we occasionally get interested in like Jeff Beliveau, Blake Parker, John Gaub, Scott Maine, Jeff Stevens, Justin Berg, Marcos Mateo, Francis Beltran, Rocky Cherry, etc. never really seem to work out.
I'm starting to come to the conclusion that unless you're a truly dominating minor league reliever, like Craig Kimbrel for instance, you probably shouldn't get too optimistic about a minor league reliever. Might be something to think about whenever we look at guys like Kevin Rhoderick down the road.
-
The last thing I want is for the 2013 Cubs to "surprise some people" by being a good deal better than expected, causing them to become buyers instead of sellers at the trade deadline. That would be the best way to undermine the game plan and to further delay building the foundation this team needs to become strong for several years.
I think the best thing for the Cubs is for them to be better than expected, because it most likely means Jackson adjustments work and he can now place the bat on the ball consistently, becoming a long term viable piece, and/or Vizcaino shows he's the real deal. Or someone else breaks through. Or, even guys like Sappelt show they can be contributors. Additional players that become part of the core would be invaluable, and a natural side effect of that would be an improved record. Teams generally improve in increments, and the sooner our young guys start growing up, the sooner we'll approach annual playoff contention.
I just can't see Theo/Jed trading off young pieces because the Cubs are on the edge of playoff contention. Do you think they would? That would seem to go against their modus operandi and everything they've built or said they're going to do...Hendry, yes, i could see him doing that, but not the current administration. That's not to say if Stanton or someone of that ilk with years of control came available, they wouldn't consider a move, but I can't see them doing it for some grizzle. Even if we are contending for a playoff spot come July, I could still see the Cubs trading a guy like Feldman if they get a good long term piece(s) in a trade offer, and don't see the player being in the long term plans.
-
Yeah...Scott Maine was claimed, wasn't he? I think Beliveau is viewed more favorably than him.
-
Yeah that is a little surprising. He pitched fairly well at times last season.
Rotoworld seems to think he'll pass through waivers easily, but I'd be kind of surprised if he did. Lefties who show anything at all have some value.
-
The first roster domino falls, and it's a little surprising:
Jeff Beliveau - R - Cubs
Cubs designated LHP Jeff Beliveau for assignment.
Beliveau posted a 4.58 ERA, 1.87 WHIP and 17/12 K/BB ratio in 17 2/3 innings this past season for Chicago. The 25-year-old seems likely to pass through waivers.
-
I doubt that they will do well enough that they will be come buyers in July. Nor do I think that Epstein or Hoyer would scrap their plan before it comes to fruition. 2014 might be a different situation.
-
If we had someone like Bourn, we'd have one of the strongest defensive teams in baseball, and a team with good pitching and defense could surprise some people.
The last thing I want is for the 2013 Cubs to "surprise some people" by being a good deal better than expected, causing them to become buyers instead of sellers at the trade deadline. That would be the best way to undermine the game plan and to further delay building the foundation this team needs to become strong for several years.
-
The Cubs' bullpen strategy this offseason has been kind of interesting.
It might best be described at Hoyer already explained the plain -- "getting a good number of arms" for the bullpen... but NOT getting a number of good arms.
-
Adams would be a nice pick-up on a 1-2 year deal.
-
Jayson Stark @jaysonst
Clubs pursuing Mike Adams say he could sign in next couple of days. Among teams linked to him: Nats, Jays, Phillies, Rangers, Cubs, Brewers
-
Actually, it's three arbitration eligible players (somehow I missed Jed Lowrie, who will be their most expensive player). Still, the third is Wesley Wright (an average reliever), so he's looking at $1 million at most--Lowrie and Norris are the only two guys they currently have who are going to get paid well this year.
-
I saw that too, but I have a hard time believing it. Their payroll right now is $5.8 million--$5 million to the Pirates for Wandy Rodriguez, and $800K for Phil Humber. And looking at service time, it looks like there are only two guys on the roster (one of them being Norris) who are arbitration eligible. Even if the Astros go into the season with a $50 million payroll (their lowest since at least 1999--Cots only goes back to 2000), they have something like $40 million to play around with right now.
-
Somebody mentioned that even if the Cubs ate a lot of Soriano's contract he was still out of Houston's price range.
-
Yeah, doesn't make sense...especially for one of Houston's few good trade pieces.
Maybe Phil has heard Soriano's and Norris' names mentioned together, but it's really as part of a 3 team deal. Or, maybe the Astros believe that if the Cubs are willing to eat ~$25 million of the deal, the Astros would be in a position to eat even more of his contract and flip him for something nice. Does Soriano actually have a NTC, or is it just 10/5 rights? Because he'd lose those if he went anywhere else.
But yeah...it's probably just Phil being Phil.
-
Here's some (probably baseless) speculation by Phil Rogers:
"Probably" baseless?
Why in goc's name would Soriano agree to a trade to Houston?
-
Here's some (probably baseless) speculation by Phil Rogers:
Phil Rogers @ChiTribRogers
Could Alfonso Soriano and much of the $36 million he's owed be part of a Bud Norris trade? Makes sense but would Sori waive 10/5 rights?
-
Lim looks to be very interesting.
96 mph and sidearm should be effective.
Also good to see Olney's comments.
-
Tweets from Olney:
Buster Olney @Buster_ESPN
Over the last week, have heard compliments from other teams about the way that the Cubs are methodically rebuilding, from the ground up.
Buster Olney @Buster_ESPN
One more thing about the Cubs: I don't think Price will be traded until next winter, but by then, they could be well-positioned to land him.
-
Free agent compensation is such a stupid idea.
-
Bourn would cost Cubs its 2nd round pick---a pretty high pick with the reduction of all those sandwich picks---because Braves made him a qualifying offer. Seems unlikely that Theo would give up that pick unless he thinks he can flip Bourn for more value in a year or so.
Forgot about that. Yeah we don't need to be doing that either.
Scratch that idea.
-
Bourn would cost Cubs its 2nd round pick---a pretty high pick with the reduction of all those sandwich picks---because Braves made him a qualifying offer. Seems unlikely that Theo would give up that pick unless he thinks he can flip Bourn for more value in a year or so.
-
Even if it's not Bourn, I wonder how hard the Cubs are working to get a true CF. Would Coco Crisp be a significant upgrade? Or Alejandro De Aza, if the White Sox are truly open to moving him?
It seems like there is significant interest in DeJesus too. There was a rumor about the Mariners the other day. He'd fit well going back to the Royals. The Braves are looking for a leadoff-type hitter to play LF. So it might even be a case where the Cubs don't really need to truly upgrade if they can just get more for DeJesus than they give up for someone like Crisp.
-
now if they could just find a couple significant players (a mid-rotation starter, or a surprise upgrade at 3B/2B/LF/RF/CF), this could end up being a surprisingly respectable non-contending team.
Part of me is holding out a little hope that Michael Bourn might settle for a three year deal and we can make a play for him. If we had someone like Bourn, we'd have one of the strongest defensive teams in baseball, and a team with good pitching and defense could surprise some people.
I think Bourn is one vet who would make a lot of sense for where we are right now, but obviously we don't need to be giving him a big $100 million or 5 or 6 year contract.
-
I think even without significant additions, this will be a respectable non-contending team. At a rate of 75 - 80 wins, until the end of July. Then it all depends upon how much of the team they trade away.
-
Also, this is a split deal...so it's essentially a minor league contract with money guaranteed if he makes the team at some point. That means they don't have to clear a roster spot for him.
-
The Cubs' bullpen strategy this offseason has been kind of interesting. All three guys they've signed/targeted have been older (Fujikawa is 32; Lim and Grilli are 36), and don't have the track record to demand a real long term deal. There was also some talk that they might be interested in Mike Adams, I think. It's a small sample of relievers...but I wonder if they feel like typical aging curves don't really apply to relievers, and other teams overlook value signings because they're expecting a drop off like you see from starting pitchers. Maybe age is the new market inefficiency in the bullpen.
Also, it doesn't really feel like it, but the Cubs have been one of the more active teams this offseason. They've brought in Baker, Feldman, Fujikawa, Navarro, Schierholtz, and now Lim. They've also brought back Stewart and Camp. They haven't made the headline-grabbing moves like the Blue Jays and Dodgers (and certainly won't see as much improvement as those teams)...but they've turned over roster spots just as aggressively. They really have done a good job adding the secondary pieces this offseason...now if they could just find a couple significant players (a mid-rotation starter, or a surprise upgrade at 3B/2B/LF/RF/CF), this could end up being a surprisingly respectable non-contending team.
-
He was signed for a contract worth up to $5 million.
-
There is a you tube video of him. He throws sidearm with a 93-96 fastball that tops out at 99. It is nicknamed a serpent fastball because of the movement.
-
So we're signing a 36 year old who just had Tommy John . . . that's kind of an oddball signing.
-
TJ Surgery was in July, so he may be ready around midseason.
-
Apparently, he recently had TJ, so he won't be a factor until 2014.
The Cubs once again reached out to try and bring in talent from wherever they can find it. The Cubs are close to signing 36 year old Korean RHP Chang-yong Lim, pending a physical. They outbid 4 teams to land Lim. Thosse teams are the Detroit Tigers, Baltimore Orioles, Boston Red Sox, and Texas Rangers.
Lim is expected to sign a split major/minor league contract with an eye toward 2014, since he just had Tommy John surgery.
Lim is a relief pitcher and like Fujikawa sees a potential opening in the back end of the Cubs bullpen, with the team likely to part ways with Marmol between now and next season.
http://www.chicagonow.com/cubs-den/2012/12/cubs-to-sign-korean-pitcher-chang-yong-lim/
-
That sounds like a minor league contract with an invite to spring training.
-
Take this with a grain of salt, but I just saw this link on the PSD forum. It may or may not be a reliable site.
http://www.arirang.co.kr/News/News_View.asp?nseq=141896&code=Ne2&category=2 (http://www.arirang.co.kr/News/News_View.asp?nseq=141896&code=Ne2&category=2)
(06) Sports Lim Chang-Yong to MLB 2
Choo Shin-Soo, and Ryu Hyun-Jin might not be the only Koreans in the major leagues next year
Right handed reliever Lim Chang-Yong, who most recently played for the Yakult Swallows of the Japanese League is expected to sign with the Chicago Cubs.
The 36-year old probably won't be a long-term solution to the struggling Cubs, but he does provide experience to their bullpen.
Lim has over 100 wins and almost 300-saves combined in the Korean and Japanese Leagues and was a pivotal part of Korea's silver medal team at the 2009 World Baseball Classic.
He was the 6th highest paid player in Japan last year earning $450,000.
-
You don't see a lot of guys with a 3.261 WHIP.
7 innings is not a particularly large sample size.
In 25 minor league relief games/26 innings last year in AAA, he had a 1.04 ERA and an .846 WHIP.
You don't see a lot of guys with that either.
-
You don't see a lot of guys with a 3.261 WHIP.
-
Barring trades, two currently-rostered players will have to be removed to make room for Schierholtz and Stewart. My nominees are Campana and Rosario. Nobody in the AL claimed Rosario, so the Astros presumably passed on him. Then send him to Iowa and invite him to ST.
-
Tony Campana might be the one.
-
Maybe the next to go is someone like Lendy Castillo, Gerardo Concepcion, etc.?
-
Good point. Maybe the next to go is someone like Chris Rusin, Lendy Castillo, Gerardo Concepcion, etc.?
ArizonaPhil
Because they were added to an MLB Reserve List (40-man roster) after August 15th, Trey McNutt, Chris Rusin, Christian Villanueva, Logan Watkins, and Rob Whitenack have Draft Excluded Status, and thus cannot be optioned or sent outright to the minors until 20 days prior to 2013 MLB Opening Day.
-
Or some kind of trade where the Cubs give up more rostered players than they receive.
-
Apparently, Schierholtz and Stewart aren't officially on the roster right now. Seems like they'd have to be added soon.
Good point. Maybe the next to go is someone like Chris Rusin, Lendy Castillo, Gerardo Concepcion, etc.?
-
Apparently, Schierholtz and Stewart aren't officially on the roster right now. Seems like they'd have to be added soon.
-
Isn't the roster already full? Seems like there will have to be tinkering soon to fit everyone on there.
Looks to me like the 40 man roster was at 39 before claiming Rosario.
-
Rosario has had a really interesting offseason, by the way.
October 17 – Claimed off waivers by the Red Sox.
November 20 – Designated for assignment by Red Sox.
November 26 – Rosario clears waivers and re-signs with Red Sox on minor league deal.
November 28 – Rosario traded to the A’s and placed on their 40 man.
November 30 – Designated for assignment by A’s.
December 10 – Claimed off waivers by Red Sox again.
December 12 – Claimed off waivers by Cubs.
-
Besides, with so many Cubs playing like girls, we might as well have one named like a girl.
-
Marinez, Ceda, Arquimedes Caminero, Sandy Rosario, Ramon Benjamin and Josh Hodges all can touch the upper 90s . . . (December 2010)
As a starter, Rosario's fastball sat at 90-91 mph and touched 94. Out of the pen, it sat at 94-95 and touched 97. (October 2010)
Rosario might actually be a halfway interesting arm. He only had 5 BB in 31 IP in Triple-A last season and 17 BB in 92 IP in 2010 (along with 125 K's).
Mid 90's with that kind of control seems interesting.
-
Cubs have claimed RHP Sandy Rosario off waivers from the Red Sox. Not much major league experience, but here are his minor league numbers:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=rosari001san
Isn't the roster already full? Seems like there will have to be tinkering soon to fit everyone on there.
-
The Cubs have claimed another castoff pitcher. This time it's Sandy Rosario from Boston. He's had three cups of coffee with the Marlins the last three seasons.
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/12/cubs-claim-sandy-rosario.html (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/12/cubs-claim-sandy-rosario.html)
-
Domonic Brown isn't nearly as interesting as he was 3 years ago, so I don't see much point in giving Soriano away for pennies on the dollar to make the trade happen. Quite frankly, as badly as Brown has played at both Triple-A and the majors the last couple of years, I really wouldn't consider him to be all that much of a return at all.
Brown has considerable upside if given regular playing time. Soriano is unlikely to ever have more value than he does right now, and even less likely to ever be a net positive on a Cubs winning team.
If the Cubs are willing to give Brown 130 starts in the OF, I hope they go for it.
Phillies Rumored to be Shopping Dom Brown
by Bill Baer on December 11th, 2012
Can’t make that up. Domonic Brown was once the Phillies’ top prospect and one they safeguarded in deals for Roy Halladay, Cliff Lee, and Roy Oswalt, but with some unfortunate injuries and a lack of organizational commitment to his playing time and development, his stock has fallen off of the veritable cliff. Alfonso Soriano bounced back from a rough 2011 season, posting a .350 wOBA with the Chicago Cubs last season.
Heyman indicates that the Cubs would pay for all but $10 million of Soriano’s $38 million remaining salary which takes him through 2014. It sounds nice — a player who is coming off of a .350 wOBA season for two years at $10 million — but Brown will have significantly more value to the Phillies in the future. Brown doesn’t become eligible for arbitration until after the 2014 season, which means that the Phillies will have him under control for slightly more than the Major League minimum for another two years. Then, after that, Brown’s salary will scale according to his production or he could agree to a multi-year extension. Kyle Kendrick, for example, earned $2.45 million 2011 in his first year of arbitration eligibility, then agreed to a two-year, $7.5 million extension with the Phillies prior to the start of last season.
Essentially, if Brown pans out to be the prospect everyone thought he would be, the Phillies will be happy to compensate him. If Brown is a dud, as others expect, then he won’t earn as much money. In giving up Brown for Soriano, the Phillies are forgoing the opportunity to reap what they’ve sown in Brown, who is still young (25) with plenty of potential, an asset that could prove to be quite valuable over the next five seasons. In return, they would be gambling on a 37-year-old corner outfielder for the next two seasons.
The Phillies put themselves in this position, though. There were several opportunities to give Brown regular and even semi-regular playing time over the years, but they left him in Triple-A when he had nothing else to gain, then he was injured. He suffered from a quad injury in 2010, then had his hamate bone broken in March 2011, which sapped him of his power for a while. All told, Brown has 492 plate appearances spread out over three seasons, an average of 164 per season. In that span of time, however, Brown has shown some good signs — he has had as much power as Carlos Ruiz (both have a .152 ISO since 2010) and the third-best walk rate behind the now-departed Jayson Werth and Chase Utley.
Brown has his flaws too: he strikes out too much (fourth-highest rate since 2010) and has not looked comfortable in either outfield corner defensively. But is Soriano really any better in that regard, and are the Phillies’ needs so immediate that they must salvage Brown now rather than continuing to let him grow? This recent bit of news, along with manager Charlie Manuel‘s recent comments about Brown…
You know something, for me to say — I think I’m sending a bad message if I say that I don’t want them [Brown and Darin Ruf]. [...]
… as well as the entire history surrounding the Phillies’ handling of Brown over the years, it does seem like a divorce is inevitable. Brown very well may be better off in another organization, but he is still a great asset to the team at the moment nonetheless, and certainly worth more to the organization going forward than Alfonso Soriano.
-
The Cubs are rumored to have offered Lahair when he was hitting for Brown. They must like him.
-
Domonic Brown isn't nearly as interesting as he was 3 years ago, so I don't see much point in giving Soriano away for pennies on the dollar to make the trade happen. Quite frankly, as badly as Brown has played at both Triple-A and the majors the last couple of years, I really wouldn't consider him to be all that much of a return at all.
This is probably a situation where we try to talk the Phillies into taking on $8-9 million per year or more of Soriano's remaining salary.
-
Interesting rumor.
-
Jon Heyman @JonHeymanCBS
#phillies talked to cubs about domonic brown for soriano swap. but cody ross/other FA more likely now http://cbsprt.co/VS72Y7
-
<If anyone wants a Cubs web browser theme, here you go.
http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/fan_forum/browsertheme.jsp?c_id=chc>
A browser for IE and none for Safari? Have these people been hibernating the last two years?
-
Here's an update on the new Cubs spring training stadium.
http://www.azcentral.com/community/mesa/articles/20121210cubs-stadium-progress-fast-track.html
-
If anyone wants a Cubs web browser theme, here you go.
http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/fan_forum/browsertheme.jsp?c_id=chc
-
The Grilli deal is apparently 2 years, $6.75 million. He turned down more from other teams (presumably, the Cubs and/or Giants) to go back to the Pirates.
-
I guess we can stop printing World Series tickets now.
-
Grilli is officially going back to the Pirates.
-
I really don't see the Ian Stewart re-signing as anti-awful. If it's anything, it's awful-awful.
It is actually neither.
The Cubs did not sign Stewart to assure they would have someone at 3B who is better than awful.
They also did not sign him with the intention of playing him for the full season if he IS awful.
They signed him as a very reasonable, well-calibrated gam-ble, part of their continuing effort to create value.
If he has recovered from surgery and does only as well as his past history shows he is capable of doing, they will have a very valuable trade deadline bargaining chip which they can move for a nice prospect or two. And if he fails, they are not out a great deal of money, and little is lost in a season where they would not be going anywhere anyway.
I think the Cubs should be aiming higher than Ian freaking Stewart.
Like who, exactly? And at what cost and at what commitment?
This is not a good season to be trying to find a quality thirdbaseman for any team, and this is not yet a Cub team which it makes sense to pay a premium to fill ANY position.
This team, as it is currently constructed, would struggle to get to 68 wins.
Welcome to sensible rebuilding.
-
Jackson's a career 98 ERA+ with a 1.44 WHIP and a high HR rate. In his recent seasons he's been ERA+ of 98, 108, and 95.
Says something about the market when that earns $50 milliion, or whatever.
-
It's not as if I think Jackson is any great shakes - he falls into the pretty good SP category - but are the Cubs really going to be in a position where paying Jackson, say, 4 years $50 million is going to tie their hands? What are we saving the money for, exactly? If nothing else Jackson could be yet another trading chip if he pitches as he usually does and we're willing to eat half his salary.
-
Chances are that Jackson will top the contract that Victarino got, and if Sanchez pushes the market up more. I could see him gtting $14-15.
I just don't buy that Jackson is that great. He's been on some really good teams and he's just managed to be .500. If your looking for innings and a .500 record just keep shopping the Baker/Feldman bins and don't tie up the money long term. If he can't get a long term contract then sure bring him in.
-
Maybe they have offered him something, we don't know. This is what people do on sports message boards in the offseason--speculate about players they'd like to see signed.
-
What have the Cubs offered?
-
But I don't think he's going to get paid like a TOR guy. He's going to get a 3-4 year deal worth about $12-$13 million a year...expensive, but not even remotely in the neighborhood of Greinke, or even Anibal Sanchez.
Fangraphs has Dempster and Jackson more or less equally effective over the last four seasons. I think that's about right. The only difference is Jackson is still in his prime and can expect to stay at that level for another 3-4 years. A good, stable pitcher like that is valuable for a team that is likely to be breaking in some inconsistent arms over the next few years.
-
Jackson has great stuff, been on 8 teams by age 29. He's a .500 pitcher that wants to be paid like a TOR guy. I know wins aren't a great way to judge pitchers, but at some point you are what you are.
-
MLB Trade Rumors:
Seriously, go offer him a fair 3-4 year deal. If he takes it, that's one less roster spot they have to worry about for the next three years. And he's unlikely to ever turn into a guy who they're unable to trade if they decide to go in a different direction a year or two down the road.
Do we know that the Cubs Haven't offered him a fair 3 - 4 year deal?
-
Cubs are apparently still looking into outfielders:
Jim Duquette @Jim_Duquette
I'm told #Cubs and Giants were involved in negotiations for Ryan Ludwick before @Reds signed him.
-
MLB Trade Rumors:
The Royals and other teams seem “very cool” to Edwin Jackson, Bob Dutton of the Kansas City Star reports (on Twitter). In other words they aren't overly eager to spend aggressively on him.
Seriously, go offer him a fair 3-4 year deal. If he takes it, that's one less roster spot they have to worry about for the next three years. And he's unlikely to ever turn into a guy who they're unable to trade if they decide to go in a different direction a year or two down the road.
-
I think both Davep and Stewart are great ****
-
I think the signing of Stewart is a great gamble. He has shown in the past that if he is healthy, he is way above average, both offensively and defensively. He now has had surgery, which may or may not return him to health. If it does, he will be a cheap addition to the core of the the team. If it doesn't, all they have lost is a little money, at a time when large numbers of fans are complaining that the Cubs aren't spending enough money.
-
I really don't see the Ian Stewart re-signing as anti-awful. If it's anything, it's awful-awful.
He hasn't come close to playing a full season in about four years, he's had chronic hand/wrist injuries (which I consider to be death for hitters, especially when it comes to power) and when he was at his best, he was only a league average hitter while playing half his games in Colorado.
I think the Cubs should be aiming higher than Ian freaking Stewart.
This team, as it is currently constructed, would struggle to get to 68 wins.
-
Someone playing devil's advocate...Lack of big name FAs doesn't mean Cubs aren't trying to win:
http://www.chicagonow.com/cubs-den/2012/12/lack-of-big-name-fas-doesnt-mean-cubs-arent-trying-to-win/
-
Purple, Clark.
-
I was in Japan last month, and the only major league hats I saw on people had a Yankee logo. A few recognized my Cubs hat and talked some baseball through the language barrier. Basically names of Japanese major leaguers.
I bought a Yomiuri Giants hat, mainly because it was $10 cheaper than the Chunichi Dragons version, and it had the most distinctive logo. The Dragons jersey has Dodgers colors and script, except there is a beautiful dragon embroidered on the sleeve. Cost way too much to consider.
I doubt much Cubs stuff will be sold over there because of Fujikawa. I didn't see major league paraphenalia in any store.
-
He is one of the good number of arms Sveum will get to use in the pen.
More than likely, he is one of a good number of arms that Iowa's manager will get to use in the pen.
-
An interesting exercise: 2012 ranking of Cubs' position players by OPS in the National League:
C - 15th
1B - 6th
2B - 13th
3B - 16th
SS - 4th
RF - 7th
CF- 14th
RF - 15th
I am assuming that the first RFer, is actually the LFer, but are those the rankings of PLAYERS, or of the output from the POSITION?
You would expect the output from 3B, CF, SS, 1B and C to all be appreciably better in 2013 than they were in 2012, with 2B and RF likely unchanged (assuming DeJesus plays RF as opposed to CF). LF output is the only one likely to be worse.
-
Carpenter fits the Cubs model for low-walks/high-HR. 9 HR/33 innings in the majors. 50HR/453 innings in AAA, with a likable 2.7 walk/9IP and decent 7.3K/9 ratio and 2.8K/walk. If he was an anti-HR guy, he'd be pretty good.
And if Niefi had hit 30 HR a year, he would have been pretty good.
Carpenter is a body to fill a uniform.
He is one of the good number of arms Sveum will get to use in the pen. He certainly is not one of a number of good arms Sveum will have in the pen.
-
Good to have another Japanese player. When Fukudome was here, Cub apparel in Japan sold like hot cakes. Money, money, money.
-
Just watched the Fujikawa press conference. He's smart; knows how to deflect tough questions. When asked about the closer position, he replied he's ready to do whatever the manager says.
He must have had a cliche session with Crash Davis.
-
An interesting exercise: 2012 ranking of Cubs' position players by OPS in the National League:
C - 15th
1B - 6th
2B - 13th
3B - 16th
SS - 4th
RF - 7th
CF- 14th
RF - 15th
Five out of eight in the bottom quartile is, say we say, not good.
-
Carpenter fits the Cubs model for low-walks/high-HR. 9 HR/33 innings in the majors. 50HR/453 innings in AAA, with a likable 2.7 walk/9IP and decent 7.3K/9 ratio and 2.8K/walk. If he was an anti-HR guy, he'd be pretty good.
-
More support for my interpretation of Hoyer's comment about getting a "good number" of arms for the bullpen did indeed mean a "good number" of arms and not a number of good arms....
Is there ANY reason to look at Carpenter as anything other than a body filling a uniform?
-
Cubs have signed Andrew Carpenter to a minor league contract. Here are his stats:
MLB: http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/carpean01.shtml
Minors: http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=carpen001and
-
The RHH backup to Ian Stewart is Josh Vitters.
Let him play.
It's not like it's really gonna matter anyway.
While it clearly would not matter to the 2013 season, it might well matter to Vitters and to what (if anything) the Cubs might ever get for Vitters from other teams, or get out of Vitters as a player.
Vitters was utterly clueless with the major league team last year, and quite clearly needs to go back to Iowa to continue his development. He may never make it, but if he starts 2013 in Chicago and plays the who season there, it further reduces the chance he ever will .
Decisions in 2013 still need to be made based on long term needs and what is best to develop prospects for their maximum long term value.
-
I don't see 70 wins anywhere on this roster. They're better than the AAAA team that finished the season, but I sure think they're worse than the one that started 2012. The rotation certainly looks worse, and there's no help on the offensive side. About the only way they're likely to improve is in the bullpen, and that's no sure thing - if it pans out they could win a few more games, but 70 would take something close to a miracle.
-
I think it's doubtful that they'll lose 100 games again. It is really hard to lose 100 games. The only way they did it last year was by using only two major league starting pitchers in August, only one (back end) major league starting pitcher in September, and an awful bullpen that they're working to fix with Fujikawa and maybe Grilli.
On paper, this is probably a ~70 win team, just like the team they started last season with. Maybe they'll do the same dumping of starting pitching in 2013...but at the very least, they should let Samardzija take his last 4-5 starts. And just improving the bullpen to the point where they're 25th best (instead of dead last by a wide margin) will keep them from losing 100.
Also, we still have over 2 months until pitchers and catchers report. I'm not completely giving up hope that they'll add a hitter and a longer term starting pitcher (someone like Edwin Jackson) before the season starts.
-
On paper, the Cubs could easily be worse than last year's team - 100 losses is certainly very possible again. It's all part of a long-term plan, but it'll be interesting to see if the heat really starts to turn up on the Theocracy with two abysmal seasons in a row, this one with a small market payroll.
-
And Jeff Baker's still out there too. Guess we could always bring him back.
-
And while I agree with a lot of you guys on Casey McGehee's defense and how lousy he's been lately, I still wouldn't be shocked if he got a look. He basically would fit the RH backup infield spot and has a history with the Cubs and with Sveum.
BTW who else would be possibilities for RH infield? Brandon Inge, Ty Wigginton, and the terrible Yuneisky Betancourt are also out there it looks like.
-
No one knows better than Stewart how much his wrist bothered him the last two years, and no one knows better than Stewart how he feels at this point.
It may be that he is convinced that he will be good enough that he won't be cut.
Actually here is why Stewart's contract is non-guaranteed.
Because Stewart has less than six years of service time, the standard big-league contract is non-guaranteed, like other one-year deals for that service level. Once he makes the team in spring training, the full salary is guaranteed.
Wittenmeyer says we're viewing Stewart as our starting 3B, and we're looking for a RH infield backup.
It's actually a pretty interesting article about how we wound up going back to Stewart when we saw how inflated the 3B market had become. When we nontendered Stewart, we didn't think at the time $2.3 million was good value for him, but when the 3B market started getting ridiculous, we decided that $2M was actually a good value play for Stewart after all. The Cubs apparently made plays for Keppinger and Chavez before falling back to Stewart.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/cubs/2012/12/cubs_reunite_with_stewart_wait.html (http://blogs.suntimes.com/cubs/2012/12/cubs_reunite_with_stewart_wait.html)
-
The RHH backup to Ian Stewart is Josh Vitters.
Let him play.
It's not like it's really gonna matter anyway.
-
Just to further my point, Ben Revere was traded for Vance Worley and Trevor May (#69 on BA). Revere in his career has put up wOBA of .278, .300. Bill James projects him for wOBA of .294. He is a slightly better version on Tony Campana. He may be a defensive whiz, but about all he does better than Barney is steal bases. Barney has put up wOBA of .294, .287.
-
Rumor has it that he is viewed around the league as a starter value, in the past it was more utility guy. He is also viewed as a possible SS. Maybe somebody won't meet the Cubs price, but I think he is undervalued here. Soriano just fits in some many places I can't see the Cubs keeping him. If I'm not mistaken if Garza is traded in Spring Training the new team could get a comp pick. I'd rather keep him, but I wouldn't be shocked if he was traded either.
-
More anti-awful moves with Stewart. Gonna be another terrible season, but at least it won't come as a surprise. ...
I don't think Barney is going to be traded, namely because as one of the worst-hitting position players in the game he has nowhere near the value that some fans believe he does. Why trade him when he's not going to bring anything substantial in return, and when he's not blocking someone better? ....not much point in dealing him.
I agree on the anti-awful, that's for sure. Feldman, Steward, Schierholz, they won't be as bad as Jackson and Vitters and Berken, but they're not going to be asset players or anything exciting, I don't think. They are at an age where sometimes guys do improve and transition from liability guys to useful, perhaps even average starters. So if you create an average player out of nothing but a couple of million, that's still some value creation.
I agree that Barney isn't likely to have enough trade value to make it much worth thinking about. As you say, he's blocking nobody and he's not likely to haul in any exciting building blocks, so why bother?
But, if somebody does want to trade somebody interesting, I'd certainly be interested.
-
Marmol
Fujikawa
Vizcaino
Rodon
Russell
Camp
Bowden
and perhaps Zych.
That is probably worth 10 wins over last year's bull pen at the very least.
-
I agree with everything you've said, JR. So I guess you can add ignorant **** to the colorful list of names you've used.
Hahaha, the problem is tico, I'm the only one here who's allowed to be called an ignorant ****. : )
-
I agree with everything you've said, JR. So I guess you can add ignorant slut to the colorful list of names you've used.
The point that he fielded cleanly more chances per 9 than anyone is undeniably special.
-
ABTY had a rumor that Cubs/Royals were discussing Barney twice yesterday. I'll be shocked if Soriano/Barney start spring training with the Cubs and midly surprised if a healthy Garza finishes spring training with the Cubs.
Garza will have more value at the end of June if he stays healthy and proves it than near the end of March when he is hoped to be healthy and simply looks it.
-
More anti-awful moves with Stewart. Gonna be another terrible season, but at least it won't come as a surprise. Rondon seems like an OK lottery ticket, under the circumstances.
I don't think Barney is going to be traded, namely because as one of the worst-hitting position players in the game he has nowhere near the value that some fans believe he does. Why trade him when he's not going to bring anything substantial in return, and when he's not blocking someone better? Maybe some contender who was an offense that can carry dead weight will have their 2B go down with an injury just before the deadline, and they'll overpay for Barney. Otherwise, not much point in dealing him.
-
First off, tico is clearly a scumbag and the spawn of all evil for his obvious hatred of Darwin Barney.
Seriously, not to deify Barney, but I think he deserves all the credit he's been getting as the best defensive 2B in baseball right now. First, Barney did tie a major league record for most consecutive errorless games . . . and he did that while fielding more plays per 9 innings than anybody in the league. That's excellent defense, regardless of how much Sveum's positioning has to do with it. You're not just going to find someone who can just do that and field all of those plays cleanly, just because we play some aggressive shifts in the field.
Also, I don't think positioning is all on a coaching staff, either. Good defensive players have a good feel for where they should position themselves on the field. I'm sure Sveum's aggressive shifting helps play a role in that, but I think if you ask any top fielding player (guys like Ripken or Sandberg or Ozzie talk about this a lot), they all say they have good instincts for where they should position themselves on the field. Ripken and Sandberg would say that's one of the reasons why you didn't have to see them diving for balls so much because they already knew where they should be positioned on the field for a play. I wouldn't attribute all of his good positioning on Sveum.
-
Stewart and Valbuena are keeping third base warm until Baez or Lake are ready. No sense putting a lot of money into a placeholder. I think Stewart is the best of a slim 3b bunch this year.
-
Barney went more than 140 straight games without an error, and I only remember one gift during that time. Positioning may increase the number of chances, but it doesn't increase the ability to catch and throw.
-
I'll play devil's advocate for a moment here. No doubt Barney is an excellent defender. He makes smart plays, and he doesn't make mistakes. But suppose for a moment that part of his defensive excellence is due to superior positioning. At least some of that is attributable to the coaching staff, and I think we saw this kind of defensive lift for Soriano and Castro. If part of Barney's value is tied up in positioning, well, you can control that for the next guy just as easily. Obviously, it's still up to the player to catch and throw the ball, making good decisions all the while. But it may be that Barney's defensive value is overstated as a result of the coaching staff's superior work, and surplus value can be extracted in a trade as a result.
-
As bad as the 3B market is, the best Stewart could do is a non-guaranteed deal? That's kind of odd.
No one knows better than Stewart how much his wrist bothered him the last two years, and no one knows better than Stewart how he feels at this point.
It may be that he is convinced that he will be good enough that he won't be cut.
-
ABTY had a rumor that Cubs/Royals were discussing Barney twice yesterday. I'll be shocked if Soriano/Barney start spring training with the Cubs and midly surprised if a healthy Garza finishes spring training with the Cubs.
Wish I were a betting man. Neither will be gone unless the Cubs can get what they consider to be full value for them, and their assessment of value is clearly much higher than that of most people here. I can envision Soriano getting traded much more readily than I can Barney, but I doubt either will be traded before the season starts.
-
ABTY had a rumor that Cubs/Royals were discussing Barney twice yesterday. I'll be shocked if Soriano/Barney start spring training with the Cubs and midly surprised if a healthy Garza finishes spring training with the Cubs.
-
Jerry Crasnick
Stewart back to full health after playing 2 years with a broken bone in his wrist. #cubs
-
I saw Casey McGehee's name floating around Twitter earlier today. Perhaps he might be an option, especially since our in-house 3B's are both left handed?
Granted he's been a lousy hitter for two years in a row, but just about everyone else at 3B is a lousy hitter at this point it seems.
I think the Cubs are looking for someone who catch the ball.
-
I'm not a fan of bringing back Ian Stewart.
I have to think that a six-year minor league free agent could probably match his production.
Yuck!
-
As bad as the 3B market is, the best Stewart could do is a non-guaranteed deal? That's kind of odd.
-
Hold up a minute, the contract is not guaranteed:
Paul Sullivan @PWSullivan
Stewart returns on non-guaranteed $2 million, 1-year contract. If released in spring training, Cubs off hook
So maybe they're not completely done looking around.
Placido Polanco seems to be a fairly likely RHH target who can back up 3B and 2B, by the way.
-
Out of the guys available, Stewart was definitely my preferred option. It's fun dreaming up scenarios of guys like Olt, but being more practical, Stewart is the best if what's around. Admittedly, that's not saying much.
-
Gordon Wittenmyer @GDubCub
Cubs confirm Stewart returns to club on 1yr $2m deal. He goes to spring as starter. Team still seeks RHH capable of backing up.
So I guess unless Soriano is traded and they surprise us with a big bat, we have the starting lineup. I still wish they'd sell high on Barney and try to get a major league hitter at second base, but that's not going to happen. Pretty disappointing that they couldn't come up with anyone with even a little bit of potential to be a long term solution with Castro, Rizzo, and maybe Castillo.
-
Might a Rule 5 pick coming off elbow surgery be easier to hide by having him spend much of the season on the DL?
Maybe. This is a guy who really needs to pitch, though. He's only had 10 IP over the past two seasons, so if he's healthy enough to pitch, it'd really be doing him a big disservice developmentally to hide him on the DL with some phatom injury.
Hoyer seems to be pretty confident that he can be a real contributor this year, so there may not be much need in hiding him.
-
Thinking about it we dont even have anybody in the high minors that could come up and make an impact this year other than cats like Junior Lake and Matt Szczur.
Writing off Brett Jackson?
-
Eh, McGehee just isn't very good. He's as much a butcher defensively as Reynolds, but he has Stewart's offense.
They might as well go in with Stewart and Valbuena unless they can get someone who is a true upgrade. No point in bringing in another .650-.700 OPS guy who probably doesn't play defense as well as either of the guys we already have.
Probably true. I'm kind of like you at this point, I think I'm just as content going into the season with Stewart and Valbuena as anyone else. At least they play defense, and maybe one of them will be anti-awful with the bat.
-
Rondon was out of left field, but I like it. It seems that no other rule 5 pitcher offered his combination of high ceiling (98 mph, excellent control, mid rotation starter) along with his seeming readiness to contribute at the major league level.
Obviously, it all comes down to health, and as others have noted, Cubs seem to like g@mbling on elbow injuries. I've read elsewhere that Hoyerstein think health may be the new market inefficiency, so let's hope they know something others don't with all these bum elbows.
Might a Rule 5 pick coming off elbow surgery be easier to hide by having him spend much of the season on the DL?
-
Eh, McGehee just isn't very good. He's as much a butcher defensively as Reynolds, but he has Stewart's offense.
They might as well go in with Stewart and Valbuena unless they can get someone who is a true upgrade. No point in bringing in another .650-.700 OPS guy who probably doesn't play defense as well as either of the guys we already have.
-
Signing Schierholtz is further evidence that Theo & Jed are dead serious about improving the Cubs' defense. They've said all along that was a priority, not just for the obvious reasons but also because it will, in effect, improve the pitching. I like it.
It also makes for exciting, highly watchable games.
When the team is going to be losing, it will be nice to at least be playing the game right while losing, even if not playing as well as the other team.
-
I saw Casey McGehee's name floating around Twitter earlier today. Perhaps he might be an option, especially since our in-house 3B's are both left handed?
Granted he's been a lousy hitter for two years in a row, but just about everyone else at 3B is a lousy hitter at this point it seems.
-
Stewart evidently for 2M plus incentives:
http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/blog/eye-on-baseball/21294346/ian-stewart-returns-to-cubs-for-2-million
-
Ian Stewart does suck but he doesnt suck worse than a lot of the FAs available.
This team is still gonna be horrible.
We might not lose 100 games but I bet we'll lose 90.
Thinking about it we dont even have anybody in the high minors that could come up and make an impact this year other than cats like Junior Lake and Matt Szczur.
-
Where does the Cubs' payroll sit right now? They must be floating somewhere middle of the pack now...hard to believe after they'd gotten all the way up to a top 5 payroll for a few years.
Maybe there is still a big signing coming.
-
With a big comeback year by Stewart and a breakout season for Castro, this Cubs team could win 70 games.
-
I saw Rondon and dreamed that the Cubs had acquired NC State lefty Carlos Rodon. Well, maybe with this roster the dream is still plausible.
-
I guess he's just as good as anyone else out there. Maybe it really has been the wrist that has killed his last two seasons. We'll see.
I'm sure they'll keep looking and would be ok with using him as a backup if they find someone better. I guess that sets the opening day lineup as something like:
DeJesus
Schierholtz/Sappelt
Castro
Rizzo
Soriano
Stewart
Castillo
Barney
-
ESPN's Jerry Crasnick reports that Ian Stewart has re-signed with the Cubs.
-
Now Heyman's backtracking on Grilli. I guess Gary Sheffield is still shopping him around.
Jon Heyman @JonHeymanCBS
grilli told @Tom_Singer " I have not made a decision. i don't know where these reports are coming from.'' #bucs
-
Agree, Dave. Given his recent profile throwing 98 in Venezuela, I'm surprised his name wasn't mentioned more.
Probably because he's barely pitched in 2 1/2 years.
-
Pirates re-sign Jason Grilli.
Jesse Rogers @ESPNChiCubs
cross off for cubs RT @JonHeymanCBS: The long wait is over. Pirates re-sign grilli. #sheffield
-
Agree, Dave. Given his recent profile throwing 98 in Venezuela, I'm surprised his name wasn't mentioned more.
Have to tip the hat to Theo and Hoyer continuing to turn up high ceiling talent in unlikely places.
-
Josh Hamilton was out of left field at the time, too...hope he's a hidden gem!
-
Also, Bourn's market continues to dwindle, as the Phillies have traded for Revere. Maybe he'll have to take a shorter length, higher avg value deal. Not sure why the Cubs have been linked to him, but it's interesting to watch this situation play out.
-
Rondon was out of left field, but I like it. It seems that no other rule 5 pitcher offered his combination of high ceiling (98 mph, excellent control, mid rotation starter) along with his seeming readiness to contribute at the major league level.
Obviously, it all comes down to health, and as others have noted, Cubs seem to like g@mbling on elbow injuries. I've read elsewhere that Hoyerstein think health may be the new market inefficiency, so let's hope they know something others don't with all these bum elbows.
-
Sounds like the guy roomed with Theriot.
-
A couple of ESPN comments from Giants fans on Schierholtz.
Thom Zajac · Bonny Doon, California
As I Giants fan I might be able to shed a little light on Schierholtz... He has some tools: good, fast fielder with exceptionally strong arm.. Surprising power and good speed on the bases. Can really get HOT at the plate for stretches.... It seemed as if he was always on the verge of blossoming, but he always seemed to follow a hot streak (he will have those) with a prolonged ice cold streak, interrupted with a minor injury of some sort and then a mysterious loss of power. And here's the thing that kind of drives fans crazy: he's not the smartest player on the block. Has speed but can't steal bases. Has a great arm but often plays too deep to throw runners out at home. Will make some insanely bad running mistakes and throwing decisions. And he'll be unhappy about not playing everyday.... All that said, it wouldn't be a complete shock if he impresses with a.290 average, and 25 homers playing half his games at the Friendly Confines in an everyday role, though I'm sure most Giant fans reading this would bet against that.
Reply · 5 · Like · Follow Post · 12 hours ago
Christophe Silvey · Subscribe · UC Berkeley
Actually, as a Giants fan I would not be surprised. Nate never got a chance to have a 'prolonged' cold streak, unlike someone like, say Brandon Belt, or even Blanco. He went hitless one series in Cincy and was on the bench for the next 6 weeks. Never one of Bochy's 'guys'.
-
Congrats to Matt Cerda...he just became an All-Star...
-
I wonder if the Cubs see pitchers with elbow injuries but no other real problems as an undervalued asset. Several of the guys they've picked up recently fit that description--Vizcaino, Baker, Rondon...all elbow-only injury guys.
-
It has been mentioned on a couple of other boards, but rondon probably has good trade value to quite a few teams. A good chance he could be productive even on a contender, and a high long term upside. It might be possible to flip him right away for a less ready but better prospect or two.
I would prefer that they didn't. Between Rondon and Vizcaino, one of them should turn out to be pretty darn good.
-
The Cubs may be able to promise Grilli a greater likelihood of closing out some games than either of the other two teams. That could have some value, if only in the form of "games finished" incentives in his contract.
-
Jesse Rogers @ESPNChiCubs
Hoyer says they watched Rondon in Venezuela this fall/winter and liked him a lot. Health will be determining factor, Hoyer says.
-
The Blue Jays are contenders, and staying with the Pirates seems to have a lot of appeal to Grilli.
It looks like the Cubs are going to have to show him the money if they want him.
-
Ken Rosenthal @Ken_Rosenthal
Grilli down to #Pirates, #Cubs, #BlueJays. Will be two-year deal. #SFGiants out.
-
Where is this supposed Grilli announcement that was supposed to come at 10:00?
-
Schierholtz might turn out to be nothing more than anti-awful if he plays everyday.
Still, I like what Dave says a lot about all some players need is some opportunity and confidence. Schierholtz strikes me as a guy who could do some really good things if he gets some opportunity and confidence. The tools are all there as the video obviously shows, and he's never been that bad of a hitter. Maybe getting out of AT&T Park and working with a different manager can make a lot of difference for him.
-
I, also, think they are dead serious about improving the defense. But is Schierholtz an improvement over DeJesus? DeJesus moving to CF is certainly not an improvement whoever they could have out there.
-
Signing Schierholtz is further evidence that Theo & Jed are dead serious about improving the Cubs' defense. They've said all along that was a priority, not just for the obvious reasons but also because it will, in effect, improve the pitching. I like it.
-
Who took Lara?
-
Schierholtz's throwing arm:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5KG9h8S13Y
Thanks, BR. That was pretty cool.
-
Burgess and Cerda where minor league phase.
Hopefully Peralta gets returned.
-
Burgess isn't much of a loss.
Kind of interesting about Peralta being picked. It seemed like late last season, he was starting to get some notice. Still, Jim Callis said in his Midwest League chat about protecting Peralta and Jose Rosario for the Rule 5, "Strong arms but not close to big league-ready, don't see protecting them."
I'm not sure a team like the Diamondbacks that is hoping to contend will keep him all year, but we'll see how it goes.
-
Cerda? I assume that is in the minor league portion of the draft
-
If he's healthy (and that's a big if), he looks like he was close to major league ready when he got hurt. Seems like he'd be a guy they wouldn't necessarily have to hide on the roster like they had to do with Lendy Castillo.
-
Cerda to cards.
-
Cubs lost Perralta and Burgess so far.
-
Fractured same elbow the next year. Was reported to be throwing 97-98 over the winter.
-
Rondon had TJ surgery two years ago. Has he had many other injuries like Guzman, or was it a one time thing?
-
Basically it looks like we drafted an Angel Guzman clone with Rondon. He was looking very promising up to 2009, making it to Triple-A at age 21. He hasn't been able to stay healthy since then. Just 41 2/3 IP between 2010 to 2012.
-
Carrie Muskat @CarrieMuskat
Rondon underwent elbow reconstruction surgery in Aug 2010. Was #Indians Minor League Pitcher of Year in 2009. #Cubs
-
Here we go. Rondon was the #7 prospect in Cleveland's farm system in 2010.
7. Hector Rondon, rhp
Born: Feb. 26, 1988 • B-T: R-R • Ht: 6-3 • Wt: 180
Signed: Venezuela, 2004 • Signed by: Stewart Ruiz
Background: A Futures Gamer in 2008, Rondon had cruised through his first five Double-A starts when the Indians moved him to the Akron bullpen, with an eye toward helping a beleaguered bullpen in Cleveland. Rondon made just two relief appearances before the Indians nixed the experiment, sending him back into the rotation and promoting him to Triple-A in July.
Strengths: Rondon's best pitch is his fastball, a lively low-90s heater that touches 96. He commands it well to both sides of the plate and it has late life through the zone, making it a swing-and-miss pitch. His second-best pitch is his average changeup, which could be a future 55 offering on the 20-80 scale. Rondon repeats a clean delivery, and his athleticism helps him field his position well.
Weaknesses: Rondon made strides with his secondary pitches, but he'll have to prove that they're good enough to keep big league hitters off his impressive fastball. His mid-80s slider needs to catch up, as it's a fringe-average pitch that flashes average occasionally. He experienced mild right biceps soreness in June but didn't miss much time.
The Future: Rondon profiles as a potential mid-rotation starter. He will likely begin 2010 in the Columbus rotation, but should be in line for a callup at some point.
-
Can't find a scouting report on Rondon. He's been injured a lot the last three years, but he has some very good peripherals (very good K's, excellent BB's, decent HR's) in prior years.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=rondon001hec (http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=rondon001hec)
-
Jesse Rogers @ESPNChiCubs
Cubs take RHP Hector Rondon from Clev. Venezuelan pitcher
-
Francoeur is awful, but I guess two platoons (DeJesus/Sappelt and Schierholtz/Francoeur) could give the Cubs .800+ OPSes in all three outfield spots.
How about a trade--a few Cubs' prospects/expendable younger players go to Kansas City. The Cubs take on 2-3 of the Royals three bad contracts (Francoeur, Hochevar, Chen), and in return the Cubs get Alex Gordon. Then put him back at third until Soriano is traded.
-
The Cubs certainly don't need to be going 3 years on Jason Grilli, so it doesn't look like we'll be getting him if Rosenthal is correct.
-
Ken Rosenthal @Ken_Rosenthal
Source: FA reliever Grilli has two-year offers from #Pirates, #BlueJays, #Cubs, #SFGiants. Will stay in PIT unless another club goes three.
-
That Francoeur/Schierholtz platoon idea has a lot of merit to it I think.
-
Both Sullivan and Wittenmyer say the Cubs are still looking for another outfielder. Sullivan says they're looking for another "corner outfielder", while Wittenmyer says it's "outfield depth" that they're looking for. Just FWIW.
-
Peter Gammons @pgammo
Jason Grilli will decide between Cubs, Blue Jays, Giants and Pirates at 10 am, or earlier if one goes to 3 years
So that probably means everyone is offering 2 year deals at this point.
-
Jon Heyman says Schierholtz turned down a 2 year, $5 million deal to sign with the Cubs. Guess that means that the Cubs have promised a lot of playing time. Ugh.
Or that he likes Chicago... or someone in Chicago.
Or that he believes that with or without an assurance of added playing time he will do well enough in 2013 to bring a bigger pay day next year.
Or that he hopes that he can do well enough to be among the mid-season trades the Cubs will make for prospects and that he has a better chance of the post season that way.
Or that he really DISLIKED the city or the management or the other players on the team offering more money.
Or any other reason we might not know.
-
Schierholtz's throwing arm:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5KG9h8S13Y
-
They still need a third baseman.
And with that in mind, I still think Stephen Drew would be a good g@mble on a 1+1 contract or maybe even a deal like they just gave to Scott Feldman and Nate Schierholtz that allows him to re-establish his value before hitting the market again (or even re-signing during the season).
Could he really be any worse than what they had there last season?
-
I don't think there's any reason to hate the Nate Schierholtz signing. He's an excellent fielder with good makeup and lefty bat (which we know the Theocracy loves) that hits right handers pretty well.
He should put up decent numbers as the lefty portion of a platoon and allow David DeJesus to cheat more toward left field defensively in order to cover for Alfonso Soriano (if they don't find any takers for him).
They still need a third baseman.
-
Admittedly a fantasy land post here, but why not have some fun?
I think it's all but a given that the Dodgers are going to throw more money than anyone at Greinke. Let's assume he lands there.
With Greinke out of the picture, the Rangers may or may not resign Hamilton. Honestly, with what they have in house, I don't see the need. Hamilton is such a huge risk, and some dummy GM is going to drive the price past reason. Work out something along the lines of Andrus and Leonys Martin for Upton and Bauer (since the DBacks seem intent on trading them), and you've replaced Hamilton with a much surer thing, while opening up a spot for Profar. You've added another stud young SP. You've gotten younger, healthier, and potentially better, given the respective ages of Upton and Hamilton. You've preserved much of Kinsler's value as a 2Bman. You also have saved a ton of money. Like 9 figures worth of cash. Spend it on Anibal and a bullpen arm, and pocket the change.
Olt is a solid guy with a high floor, but Beltre's blocking him and is under team control through 2016. Beltre is also better than Olt will ever be, among the elite at a very weak position, and he's not showing signs of slowing down. Meanwhile, the Rangers are going to need some more pitching. Here's where the Cubs step in, working out something like Garza for Olt. Tex enjoys a rotation of Darvish, Sanchez, Garza, Harrison, and Holland. Oh, and Bauer and Perez are in AAA. That's sick.
Cubs then go out and sign Edwin Jackson to round out the rotation. Grilli finishes out the bullpen.
Rotation:
Sam
Jackson
Baker
Feldman
Wood
Bullpen:
Marmol
Fujikawa
Grilli
Camp
Russell
Lineup:
DeJesus
Castro
Rizzo
Soriano
Olt
Schierholtz/Sappelt
Castillo/Navarro
Barney
Is that team going to make the playoffs? No. But they have a chance to be decent, all while retaining long term flexibility. If there's still cash floating around, go and get someone like Marcum or Villanueva to fill out the rotation/swing man position with a more qualified arm.
-
Still, I would like one really good bat this offseason. And it doesn't look like it's coming from 3B.
I would like an ace to head the pitching staff. ;)
-
Yeah, I'm coming around. Schierholtz/Sappelt platoon should be good.
Still, I would like one really good bat this offseason. And it doesn't look like it's coming from 3B.
-
Schierholtz is an outstanding fielder with a cannon arm...good work ethic and clubhouse guy...should be ok in a platoon.
-
$2.25 million for Schierholtz. That's a lot for a bench guy.
I get the feeling we're scouting some untapped potential with this move. He has a .916 career OPS in Triple-A, had to deal with AT&T Park and erratic playing time in San Francisco, and hasn't been an awful major league hitter.
I kind of had my eye on him as an interesting low cost move this offseason. It's not like we're going anywhere this year anyway, so if we waste 300-400 AB and $2M on him this year, big deal. But if he turns into a respectable LH .850 OPS hitter this year, it's a terrific move.
-
Schierholtz has been really good against RHP the last two years...so a Schierholtz/Sappelt platoon could be pretty good. I do like Sappelt.
Still, I feel like it's a sign of completely forfeiting the 2013 season...and I'd like them to make at least a slight effort. I guess I'd feel better about this deal if this was a precursor to a Soriano trade, and they still went out and got someone like Choo for the third outfield spot.
-
I like the Schierholz signing. Theo spendin some of the smartest money this winter.
Fujikawa, Baker, Feldman, Schierholz all look like great values at this point.
-
Not saying I love it but the last 2 years Schierholtz has OPS over .800 vs righties. Just wait until they trade Soriano, the OF may not combine for 30 HR.
-
Jon Heyman says Schierholtz turned down a 2 year, $5 million deal to sign with the Cubs. Guess that means that the Cubs have promised a lot of playing time. Ugh.
-
Don't know why they'd bother with Francoeur in a platoon when Dave Sappelt would almost certainly be better.
I really hope they're not done in the outfield.
-
Schierholtz is a classic anti-awful move. Good makeup, not a terrible hitter, very good glove. But definitely not someone who would be starting for a serious major-league team - he's a bench player through and through.
-
Bruce Levine has been horrible.
On that note, ABTY was mentioning that the Cubs might be interested in a Jeff Francoeur/Nate Schierholtz platoon in RF this AM.....
-
Gordon Wittenmyer @GDubCub
Report of Cubs-Dempster talks grossly misrepresents their nature. Negotiations not happening. Reunion implausible
A reminder that all rumors should all be taken with a heavy dose of salt.
-
$2.25 million for Schierholtz. That's a lot for a bench guy.
-
It's fine, as long as they don't plan on him being the everyday guy in RF. It shouldn't be hard to find a better everyday guy.
-
I like that signing. I think there's an off chance of some untapped potential there.
-
Cubs signing Nate Schierholtz:
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/12/cubs-to-sign-nate-schierholtz.html
Hope they're not planning to use him as more than a fourth outfielder.
-
The rumors have been that Dempster was talking to the Brewers, but they were unwilling to go more than 2 years. Maybe he has decided if he can't get more than 2 years, he'd rather just come back to Chicago.
I would welcome bringing Dempster back. Having Russell and Wood in the bullpen from the left side would be strong. Wood and Vizcaino as the 6th and 7th starters wouldn't be bad either.
-
Here's Bruce Levine's blog on the Dempster talks.
http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/8718447/ryan-dempster-agent-chicago-cubs-talk-deal-source
-
Wow.
Bruce Levine @ESPNBruceLevine
Cubs and Ryan Dempster's agent talking parameters of deal. No direct offer yet. See blog.
-
Everyone breathe a sigh of relief:
Gordon Wittenmyer @GDubCub
Don't believe everything you read about Cubs' interest in Y. Betancourt. it doesn't exist. #badrumor
-
The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of trying to get Juan Francisco for 3B. He's probably not going to be better than anyone else available...but he does have one elite tool (power) that could make him decent. And if he manages to back into a .270 batting average somehow, he could be a nice stopgap for a couple of years (or at least have some real trade value next offseason if they don't think it's sustainable).
Of course, I'm still holding out hope they'll pull off something surprising.
-
The latest rumor has the Cubs telling Marmol that he's starting the season as closer, but will probably be traded at the deadline.
If the Cubs got Grilli and kept Marmol, a bullpen of Marmol/Grilli/Fujikawa/Russell/Camp/Bowden/whoever would have a chance to be pretty strong.
-
Betancourt would be nothing but non-roster AAA filler. Nothing to worry about.
-
If we sign Betancourt, I might take the year off...
-
Another story linking us to the awful Yuniesky Betancourt. I can't believe the Theocracy would have any interest in a player like him.
http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/cubs/post/_/id/14283/source-cubs-have-some-interest-in-betancourt?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
-
I don't really know. Fangraphs has him as a slight plus in 2012, but small sample applies.
I think bad defense is his reputation. Still, he's probably Mark Reynolds without the cost.
-
He's also a butcher defensively isn't he?
-
Juan Francisco is a third baseman who could be interesting...he's never going to get on base very much, but he has a ton of power. The Braves may be willing to trade him if they get a left fielder and move Prado back to third.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/f/francju02.shtml
-
Pretty dull winter meetings for the Cubs. Following Twitter, it seems like everyone else is doing stuff, but when it's a Cub related tweet, it's usually something like "Dale Sveum gets shot" or "Jim DeShaies was 33 for 373 in his career".
-
It may be that they just don't consider Youkilis much of a third baseman at this point.
-
Jon Heyman @JonHeymanCBS
3B are in demand. youkiliis, chavez, keppinger, even hannahan should do well. in need: nyy, mia, chiw, phi, chic, etc.
I really haven't thought that much about Youkilis for some reason. It's actually pretty surprising we don't hear him in any rumors with the Cubs, given the obvious connections with the Theocracy.
He hasn't graded out as that good of a defensive 3B the last couple of years, though. I'd still like to see the Cubs wind up with a quality glove there, so that's probably one reason why I haven't been super interested. Still, we're starting to scrape the bottom of the barrel here, so we probably don't need to be especially picky.
-
Joel Sherman @Joelsherman1
#Indians may be ahead for Jason Bay, #Mariners still a factor. #Cubs on periphery
-
The Cubs were probably never really that involved for Yunel Escobar if this is true:
The Marlins' trade of Yunel Escobar to the Rays earlier tonight was prompted by the fact that Escobar approached the club saying he was not comfortable at third base just days after telling them otherwise, writes Joe Capozzi of the Palm Beach Post.
-
Bring him back and let him throw his splitter.
-
Bruce Levine mentioned on the Twitter that the Cubs are looking at Kyle Farnsworth.
ETA: Actually, other people mentioned on the Twitter that Levine mentioned it elsewhere.
-
Sveum was telling that story yesterday morning on the MLB network...why are they acting like it just came out?
-
Reynolds just isn't a third baseman anymore. He can probably play there if he has to, but he's not a guy you sign specifically to play at third base every day.
I wonder if Kelly Johnson could play third base. He's a free agent, and no one is after him right now. He's likely to hit as well as pretty much anyone else available to play the position, and would cost less.
Think it's too late to dig up Santo's corpse?
-
4. I really like the general confidence that the Cubs seem to have that they can teach and fix young players. It would be really neat to see that starting to happen, frequently and dramatically.
I liek the fact that they are genuinely trying.
The confidence that they have in their efforts doesn't mean much, particularly until we have seen some real results.
But I am happy with the effort, and the fact that they are doing some things rather different from the past.
-
Could Brett Jackson open the season as the Cubs' CF after all?
No.
I don't think there is any chance of that.
Hoyer will look at his experience with Rizzo, and the fact that there is no pressure to win early in the season and comfortably start Jackson in Iowa, even if Jackson has one of the best springs in memory.
-
First they sign a guy named "Deer" and now a hunting accident.
Coincidence?
I think not.
-
Yount reportedly pulls a Cheney and shoots Sveum while the two were out hunting. It's nothing serious.
-
Choo probably has more speed than DeJesus at this point in time. While neither of them profile as top notch defensive CF's, my guess is that Choo would the be better of the two.
-
The Cubs don't have many strengths going into next year, but one of the few they have the potential to have is a well above average defense. If we signed a plus defensive 3B and a plus defensive CF, we would have a pretty excellent defense.
I guess that's what surprises me the most about this talk about moving DeJesus to CF or perhaps signing Mark Reynolds for 3B. Seems like either of those moves ruins a potential strength for the team.
-
Choo has played CF once since 2007 so he's strictly a corner guy. Outstanding RF arm too.
-
Even if Jackson is making good progress, if the market is soft enough for Choo, I think you have to pursue him.
If Jackson really is righting the ship, Choo gives him time to cement the adjustments being made. When Jackson is called up, Choo shifts to RF. If Jackson does not figure it out, Choo is not a bad guy to have on your team. Either way, he is a no brainer qualifying offer kind of guy at the end of the season.
-
Reynolds just isn't a third baseman anymore. He can probably play there if he has to, but he's not a guy you sign specifically to play at third base every day.
I wonder if Kelly Johnson could play third base. He's a free agent, and no one is after him right now. He's likely to hit as well as pretty much anyone else available to play the position, and would cost less.
-
Hell, Casey McGehee needs work...let's invite him to camp...
-
Mark Reynolds now enters the picture.
Jon Heyman @JonHeymanCBS
Mark reynolds has nice market. Cubs, nyy, cle, miami, sea, balt, tb, plus
-
I love Brandon McCarthy - tremendous makeup and OK stuff - but he has extremely, gravely serious shoulder concerns that would have to be seriously reflected in any contract.
-
Interesting that Cubs brass is talking about acquiring a corner OFer rather than a CFer. Of course they know that DeJesus in CF is not a great option defensively but perhaps they are so encouraged about B. Jackson's off-season work that they are keeping all CF options open. If Jackson looks really good at Iowa, he could be back up in short order. Wow, that would be a huge development if he can hit.
-
I am speculating of course, but I read Sveum's statements to suggest that (1) during Jackson's time with the Cubs, Sveum (and Rowson perhaps) identified specific mechanical issues with Jackson's approach at the plate, (2) Jackson's experience with the Cubs convinced him he needed to make significant changes, (3) during the week in Arizona they worked with Jackson on the specific changes he needed to make, (4) Jackson understood, embraced and began to execute the changes, and (5) Jackson will continue to work on lots of repetitions of the new approach over the rest of the winter.
I don't know what the changes were, but I'm guessing one had to do with correcting his habit of bringing his back elbow up over his shoulder as he started his swing. I'm sure there were other things (keeping his hands lower, perhaps) whether the elbow issue was addressed or not. Mechanical things are much easier to correct than more intangible recognition of pitches or plate discipline. Jackson is both a smart and committed guy so I don't doubt he's capable of making mechanical adjustments. It will just take lots of reps to develop new muscle memory that wipes out the old muscle memory.
-
“...a week ago, he went out to Arizona, we were able to fix the things and be hands on,” Sveum said. "I think he’ll tell you it was a huge learning experience. Things obviously didn’t go well but he knows now that sometimes you have to hit that wall to know, ‘wow, I really have to make some huge adjustments to play at this level.’”
I think Sveum should call up Baez really early next year, and have him fail enough to become ready for some huge adjustments, then spend a week hands-on and fix him, too.
I think baez needs to learn the art of hitting as well as Jackson.
-
"We brought him up last season hoping he was going to do well but knowing we get to see him first-hand, where a week ago, he went out to Arizona, we were able to fix the things and be hands on,” Sveum said. “I think he’ll tell you it was a huge learning experience. Things obviously didn’t go well but he knows now that sometimes you have to hit that wall to know, ‘wow, I really have to make some huge adjustments to play at this level.’”
Interesting. It's kind of a run-on sentence, but it almost reads as if sveum is saying that a week ago Jackson went to Arizona and in one week of hands-on coaching, Sveum fixed him? That would be one of the most amazing and instant "fixes" in history. My guess is that I'm misreading that or it wasn't quite what Sveum really meant. I assume he meant that some of the fixing had already been set in motion earlier, perhaps both during the season and in fall; and that last week Sveum had a chance to see him. Probably some of the huge adjustments had already been well along, and last week was Sveum's chance to see them; plus last week was Sveum's chance to add some more hands-on fixing.
I find several levels of this interesting:
1. The optimism that Jackson really can change, for the better.
2. The general idea that any hitter, after this many years in, can be changed dramatically.
3. The extraordinary self-confidence that Sveum has as a teacher/coach/analyst. A lot of managers want to manage, and are happy to let scouts scout/analyze and minor-league coaches teach. But Sveum had Hoyer call up Jackson because he wanted Jackson himself, to watch, to coach, and to correct. That's a lot of confidence. I like it. I like that a lot.
4. I really like the general confidence that the Cubs seem to have that they can teach and fix young players. It would be really neat to see that starting to happen, frequently and dramatically.
-
Quote from Sveum:
"That's where we're changing the culture ... to get (them) to understand when you put on the Yankees pinstripe, it's different than some things, and when you put on a Cubs uniform, you want that to be different,” he said.
LOL
-
Could Brett Jackson open the season as the Cubs' CF after all?
Brett Jackson may be back in the mix in the Cubs’ starting outfield. Jackson spent a few days in Mesa, Ariz., with Cubs manager Dale Sveum, who said Tuesday the young outfielder has made “huge, huge strides” and completely overhauled his swing. Jackson, who batted .175 in 44 games with the Cubs after he was called up in early August, was projected to open the 2013 season at Triple-A Iowa. That may change.
“There’s no doubt that Brett Jackson could be part of the Cubs big league team next year,” Sveum said. “These kind of things are obviously all up to the individual now. We brought him up last season hoping he was going to do well but knowing we get to see him first-hand, where a week ago, he went out to Arizona, we were able to fix the things and be hands on,” Sveum said. “I think he’ll tell you it was a huge learning experience. Things obviously didn’t go well but he knows now that sometimes you have to hit that wall to know, ‘wow, I really have to make some huge adjustments to play at this level.’”
The Cubs are in the market for another outfielder, and would prefer a left-handed bat. Jackson could be that guy.
“I think he’s got a good base to work with the rest of the winter and going into Spring Training to understand the art of hitting, so to speak,” Sveum said. “Sometimes it gets lost and taught the wrong way.”
http://muskat.mlblogs.com/2012/12/04/124-jackson-making-strides/ (http://muskat.mlblogs.com/2012/12/04/124-jackson-making-strides/)
-
Rosenthal, hinting that the cost of Choo in a trade isn't likely to be all that much:
#Indians’ efforts to trade Choo hampered somewhat by Twins’ return for Span: Class A pitcher, albeit good one. Span 3 yrs of control, Choo 1
Value of players under one year of control diminished. #Indians’ Choo, represented by Scott Boras, is free agent after next season.
-
Yeah, Valbuena is far, far superior to Betancourt. I can't imagine that rumor has much likelihood of coming true.
-
My guess is the Cubs probably "check in" on a lot of guys, looking for bargains. The present Cubs are so bad across the board, they can sign somebody at almost any position and put him to good use, if the value-per-dollar looks good. And with budget to spare, whether a guy is a good value at $2, $5, or $30/3, we can do any of those.
-
Surely to Goc the Cubs aren't going to have Yuniesky Betancourt at 3B next year. If we're that desperate, I will say we may as well go with Valbuena.
http://muskat.mlblogs.com/2012/12/04/124-cubs-consider-betancourt/ (http://muskat.mlblogs.com/2012/12/04/124-cubs-consider-betancourt/)
-
Jerry Crasnick says the Indians are going hard after Victorino, but Cubs, Red Sox, and Yankees have checked in. Says he'll probably get a 3-4 year deal, which I would have no interest in. At 1-2 years, he's fine. Any more than that, pass.
Lots of money flowing freely at the Opryland in Nashville.
-
Jerry Crasnick says the Indians are going hard after Victorino, but Cubs, Red Sox, and Yankees have checked in. Says he'll probably get a 3-4 year deal, which I would have no interest in. At 1-2 years, he's fine. Any more than that, pass.
-
Trading for Olt plays well for the math skills of the posters here. With all the practice they have had working with Brett Jackson's strike out rate, they should be able to attack Olt on the very first day we get him.
Heh heh. How about Jackson for Olt? Maybe toss in McNutt or Loux or whatever is appropriate if it seems imbalanced in our favor. Or have them toss in Brigham or something if it's perceived as imbalanced in their favor.
-
ABTY was reported that the Cubs and Yankees have been talking, no one knows what about though, another name that has popped up is Murphy from the Rangers. FYI.
-
Olt had 101 k's in 354 ab's in the minors last year and 13 in 33 ab's in the majors in 2012. He has 17 k's in 56 ab's in the Dominican league this winter. Definitely a concern, but I guess the scouts project it not to be much of a problem long term.
-
As I posted in the original post, though, (1) Olt's strikeout rate isn't as bad (though still a major concern), and (2) Olt has true plus power, which seems to be a requirement of succeeding long term at the major league level with that kind of strikeout rate.
-
Several sources are popping up saying that they expect Mike Olt to be traded by the end of the winter meetings...and they don't all necessarily sound like they're expecting it to be in a deal for someone like Upton. He's a guy that has some of the same contact questions that Jackson has...only they're not quite as severe with him, and he has the kind of power that can hide those issues. I hope the Cubs are doing a lot of homework and asking about him.
Trading for Olt plays well for the math skills of the posters here. With all the practice they have had working with Brett Jackson's strike out rate, they should be able to attack Olt on the very first day we get him.
-
The A's seem to be one of the primary teams interested in Escobar...maybe the Cubs' conversations have been more about them trying to butt in and make it a 3 way deal with the A's sending one of their CFs the Cubs way? Just wishful thinking.
Rumors today have Curtis Granderson available, with the Yankees primarily wanting to move him to free up payroll. That could be interesting for the Cubs.
-
Several sources are popping up saying that they expect Mike Olt to be traded by the end of the winter meetings...and they don't all necessarily sound like they're expecting it to be in a deal for someone like Upton. He's a guy that has some of the same contact questions that Jackson has...only they're not quite as severe with him, and he has the kind of power that can hide those issues. I hope the Cubs are doing a lot of homework and asking about him.
-
Addition by Subtraction: The Braves trade Yunel Escobar
http://blogs.ajc.com/mark-bradley-blog/2010/07/14/addition-by-subtraction-the-braves-trade-yunel-escoba/
I knew he had issues, but I didn't realize his clubhouse problems were that bad.
Weird that we're linked to him. Then again, "checking in" on Escobar isn't nearly the same as that we're about to trade for him. It might be one of those situations where the Marlins let it leak that we "checked in" on him along with those other 3 teams to make it seem like there's a market for him.
-
Uh oh . . . we might be starting Luis Valbuena at 3B after all.
Bob Nightengale @BNightengale
Ian Stewart, who recently got a clean bill of health with his hand/wrist problems,suddenly has drawn wide interest from teams looking for 3B
-
Addition by Subtraction: The Braves trade Yunel Escobar
http://blogs.ajc.com/mark-bradley-blog/2010/07/14/addition-by-subtraction-the-braves-trade-yunel-escoba/
This is a happier clubhouse than it has been in years, and not just because the team is in first place. Because these guys like and respect one another. The one guy who didn’t fit — and who was never going to fit, no matter how many chances the Braves offered — just got traded. “In the short term, this really improves our ballclub,” Wren said, and it improves it not because Gonzalez is a greater talent but because he’s a real pro.
Also telling in this article...there's a poll asking how fans perceive the trade. The Braves obviously lost this deal on pure talent...I think everyone acknowledges that. But with over 3,500 responses, only 11% believed the trade was bad. So even the fans were okay with obviously downgrading the position while the team was contending.
Rate this Braves trade:
A solid single. (47%, 1,680 Votes)
A home run. (42%, 1,497 Votes)
A whiff. (11%, 370 Votes)
Total Voters: 3,547
And there's nothing from his time in Toronto that happened to make you think he has changed at all. In fact, the whole eye black incident serves as proof that he's still not someone you want on your team.
-
With Escobar, always remember that Bobby Cox hated him so much that the Braves took Alex Gonzalez back for him. Alex Gonzalez--a guy in his mid-30s with a sub-.700 career OPS and sub-.300 career OBP--was what the Braves took back for their 27 year old shortstop who, prior to that season, had hit .301/.375/.426 in his career. And the Braves were in contention that season. There were some other minor pieces on each side (Jojo Reyes and Tyler Pastornicky)...but the primary deal was Escobar for Gonzalez.
-
Have you ever seen Yunel and Milton in the same room together? May not be different people.
-
Yunel Escobar has been a terrible baseball player in 2 of the last 3 years, and he has run himself off of two teams with his attitude. He's the new Milton Bradley, stay away.
-
So if the Cubs are in on Escobar, I guess we're looking at him to play 3B? He also doesn't seem to have the type of clubhouse rep you'd expect for a team that's trying to change its organizational culture. Pretty surprising we'd be in on him. I guess Theo may think he has a chance to buy low and get some good value.
-
Slusser reports that the A's have heavy competition for Brandon McCarthy, as the Diamondbacks, Cubs, Royals, Red Sox, White Sox and Twins have already met with the right-hander, and the Angels and Rangers are expected to join the fray.
-
Yunel Escobar?
Jon Heyman @JonHeymanCBS a's, rays, cubs, yankees checked in on yunel escobar. oak has had a fair amount of talks but is also meeting on drew today
Jayson Stark @jaysonst On other hand, #Marlins (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Marlins&src=hash) clearly would like to move Yunel Escobar. I count 4 teams definitely in on him: #Rays (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Rays&src=hash), #A (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23A&src=hash)'s, #Yankees (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Yankees&src=hash) & #Cubs (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Cubs&src=hash)
Buster Olney @Buster_ESPN Yunel Escobar, targeted by A's, probably has worst contract(from player's perspective) in the majors. $5m for 2013, $5m options for '14/'15.
-
Still, if they're sending guys like Szczur, Lake, or Vitters, I'm not sure it would be a bad idea. I mean, outside of Cubs fans, does anyone still perceive those guys as being anything more than role players (if that)?
I still hold hope out for Szczur. His Daytona numbers were just fine, and part of me hopes you can chalk up his struggles at Double-A to adjusting to a new level. Then again, it seems like more and more people are looking at him as a 4th outfielder. Next year will definitely be a key year for him.
Lake is pretty much a good dancer, and Vitters just can't seem to ever get it all put together.
-
Yeah, that does seem to be getting a little high.
Still, if they're sending guys like Szczur, Lake, or Vitters, I'm not sure it would be a bad idea. I mean, outside of Cubs fans, does anyone still perceive those guys as being anything more than role players (if that)?
-
I don't see that sort of deal making any sense for the Cubs. Cabrera falls comfortably into the "pretty good" category - he's certainly not a star - and the Cubs can't afford to be giving up multiple pieces for guys like that.
-
Since I mentioned him yesterday as a fit...Indians looking for 3-4 players for Asdrubal Cabrera. Apparently a trade already fell apart that involved a major league pitcher and 2 high level prospects when the Indians asked for a third prospect to be added. That team was planning to switch his position.
http://www.cleveland.com/tribe/index.ssf/2012/12/cleveland_indians_looking_for_2.html
-
Between 1989 and 1991, in addition to Pendleton, the Braves acquired veterans Charlie Liebrandt, Lonnie Smith, Jeff Treadway, Otis Nixon, Sid Bream, and Rafael Belliard. All of those guys were pretty significant players in the Braves winning in 1991.
It's not like the Braves spent 1989 to 1990 totally surrounding their core young players with a bunch of Quadruple-A garbage and fringe prospects who had no chance to be good and settled for that.
-
Where did the idea come from that the new front office does not value the Hendry era prospects or players? I haven't seen anything to indicate that.
They don't seem to value Vitters very much right now, but that is because he has done so poorly, and if Hendry were still in power, he probably wouldn't value him very much right now either.
Jackson, Lake and Szczur seem to be valued about as much as their abilities and production would indicate. And they probably were higher on Samardzija last spring than Hendry would have been had he still been there.
They certainly seem to be quite happy with Castro, Russell and Barney, all from the Hendry era, they seem to be giving the starting catcher position to Castillo, and they gave Clevenger every chance to prove himself at the ML level.
-
A follow up on one of the Theocracy's least admirable moves since taking over . . .
Paul Sullivan @PWSullivan
Congrats to Jimmy Bank, voted traveling secretary of the year by peers. #AlsoFired http://twitpic.com/biu348
Gordon Wittenmyer @GDubCub
Longtime Cubs traveling sec'y Jimmy Bank voted traveling sec'y of year by peers -- just weeks after Cubs abruptly let him go. #LouBrock
JR, I suspect that there was a specific, and most likely perfectly valid, reason for that decision, but that the position of traveling secretary is simply not one likely to result in much digging into the matter.
-
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.
In 1990 the Atlanta Braves put together their 3rd straight 97 loss or worse season , averaging 100 losses a year for three straight years, losing 92, 86 and 97 in the three years before that, but the last three years of that were seasons when management had stopped really trying to field a com-petitive team. Those three seasons Atlanta management made no real efforts to make moves to win games those seasons, they instead focused on building a foundation for long-term success. After the 1990 season they made one significant FA signing, for Terry Pendelton, who was not exactly the top FA that season, but he fit their needs, and they had decided their roster had developed to the point that it WAS time to make a move.
They made it to the WS, and began a lengthy run of dominance of the NL.
I see the Theocracy doing the same thing, and I have no desire that they deviate from their path one bit in order to win another handful of games in 2013, with no real chance of going anywhere.
-
For a while, there have been suggestions that the Cubs could end up getting a corner OF instead of a CF this winter. Now there is at least one report/tweet that DeJesus will be the CF to open next season, and the Cubs will focus on getting a RF instead of a CF.
If the Cubs believe that Jackson can be ready sometime in 2013, that would make some sense. If the Cubs do manage to trade Soriano for some decent value, having a corner option would be helpful. Also, DeJesus will be a free agent after next season.
I believe the Cubs hold a 2014 option on DeJesus.
-
I keep reading and hearing about the Indians who are available...I've got to say, if the Cubs could find a few players that they want, they seem to be a perfect fit. Choo has one year left and is a Boras client, so he can't have a ton of trade value. But he could possibly be the Cubs' best hitter. And Asdrubal Cabrera's defense has slipped a little the last couple of years, so a move to third base might be in his future...and his defense would probably be really good over there. He'll play next season at 27 years old, so he's young enough that the Cubs could keep him around for a while (but his current contract only has 2 more years, which will limit his value).
I believe Bruce Levine has said multiple times that the Indians do like some of the Cubs prospects. So I just wonder if there is a deal based around young but replaceable major league guys with value (Wood, Barney, Clevenger) and Hendry-era prospects that aren't valued as much by the new front office (Jackson, Lake, Szczur, maybe McNutt or Vitters) to get both of them. Probably not...someone probably would want Cabrera enough as a SS to give up a borderline top prospect for him.
-
Theo flashing a little humor.
Carrie Muskat @CarrieMuskat
#Cubs still checking FA options at 3B. Theo Epstein on thin FA market there: "It'd be good to be Mike Schmidt right about now."
-
For a while, there have been suggestions that the Cubs could end up getting a corner OF instead of a CF this winter. Now there is at least one report/tweet that DeJesus will be the CF to open next season, and the Cubs will focus on getting a RF instead of a CF.
If the Cubs believe that Jackson can be ready sometime in 2013, that would make some sense. If the Cubs do manage to trade Soriano for some decent value, having a corner option would be helpful. Also, DeJesus will be a free agent after next season.
-
Paul Sullivan @PWSullivan
Deshaies' friends say Len Kasper pushed hard on Deshaies hiring. #Clout
Kasper is good. That says a lot, I think, that he wanted Deshaies. Deshaies sounds a whole lot preferable to Sutcliffe or Grace, that's for sure.
Now lets get him some good players to talk about. I have to imagine that for an announcer, as for a player, being associated with a Cubs team that goes to a world series, and wins it, would be awfully special.
-
Here's some video links of DeShaies that I found linked on the The Cub Reporter comments section (you might get a 30 second commercial on the first link).
http://www.obstructedview.net/chicago-cubs/will-jim-deshaies-be-the-replacement-for-bob-brenly.html
-
A follow up on one of the Theocracy's least admirable moves since taking over . . .
Paul Sullivan @PWSullivan
Congrats to Jimmy Bank, voted traveling secretary of the year by peers. #AlsoFired http://twitpic.com/biu348
Gordon Wittenmyer @GDubCub
Longtime Cubs traveling sec'y Jimmy Bank voted traveling sec'y of year by peers -- just weeks after Cubs abruptly let him go. #LouBrock
-
Good choice, although I hope Berman never visits the booth and subjects us to "Two Silhouettes on DeShaies"...
-
Paul Sullivan @PWSullivan
Deshaies' friends say Len Kasper pushed hard on Deshaies hiring. #Clout
-
Ron, make sure the rope is short enough that your feet are off the floor or you'll never hear the end of it.
BTW, Deshaies goes from the Astros to the Cubs. Talk about a glutton for punishment.
-
You need to learn how to spell Eric Karros properly too.
Man, am I in deep trouble when my spelling is corrected by Jiggy. ;)
-
Craig you don't miss on the World Series for 100 years without trying really hard to be bad. I think the Cubs will be somewhat respectable until the trading deadline, and then you'll see slightly better versions of the crap guys. With Rizzo, Castro, Samardijzia, a healthy Garza it will be difficult to be #1 pick worthy.
-
Actually, Deshaies sounds like a great hire. Glad the Cubs didn't feel like they had to settle for an ex-Cub and actually went out to hire the best broadcaster available.
-
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.
http://www.fangraphs.com/not/index.php/a-jim-deshaies-soundboard/ (http://www.fangraphs.com/not/index.php/a-jim-deshaies-soundboard/)
-
You need to learn how to spell Eric Karros properly too.
-
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.
http://www.fangraphs.com/not/index.php/a-jim-deshaies-soundboard/
-
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.
-
JR. My purple comment was for br to read MY comments that way. Moran.
-
Ron beat me, I was about to post the same tweet. What we've heard about Jim Deshaies sounds good, though.
-
DKnobler @DKnobler
More broadcasting news: Jim Deshaies leaving Astros TV to replace Bob Brenly on Cubs TV (Brenly went to Arizona)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Bruce Levine has now said the Cubs are interested in Jason Grilli, confirming the rumor from the PSD insider the other day. Interesting.
-
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.
-
Purple, br. Purple
-
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.
-
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.
-
Hell, leave the base open.
They already do that with left handed pull hitters.
-
So give some time to Valbuena.
What I'm saying is, what difference does it make? Hell, leave the base open.
-
DeRosa has a total of 302 PA over the past three seasons. He's done as anything approaching an everyday guy. Or even a part time/platoon guy.
-
If we're just looking for a stopgap at third, what's wrong with DeRosa? It's not like we're planning on the WS.
-
It doesn't sound like DeRosa is totally ready to settle for a broadcasting career yet.
Jon Heyman @JonHeymanCBS
Mark derosa is looking for a job as 24th/25th man. Good guy for any clubhouse.
How about a dual role?
He announces any game he doesn't start, but suits up even in the broadcast booth so he can come down to take the field.... or he even serve as color commentator from the dugout... or put a wireless mike on him and let him provide analysis from the field....
Could be pretty interesting....
-
It doesn't sound like DeRosa is totally ready to settle for a broadcasting career yet.
Jon Heyman @JonHeymanCBS
Mark derosa is looking for a job as 24th/25th man. Good guy for any clubhouse.
-
That's assuming they still would have won it with Soriano there.
-
Yeah, he could have joined Theriot in getting a ring.
-
Chicago Cubs: Now that they've signed closer Kyuji Fujikawa, they can continue to shop Carlos Marmol, who is owed $9.8 million for 2013, the last year of his multiyear deal. Alfonso Soriano is a player they have been trying to move for months -- and they're willing to pay off the majority of the $36 million he is owed over the next two seasons. However, Soriano has a full no-trade clause and he has made it apparent that he will wield it unless he gets to a desired destination; he rejected a chance to go to the San Francisco Giants last year.
So where could he go? He told me last season that there are few places to which he would accept a trade.
-
Well, the Angels must be one of them now.
-
According to the report I saw, Marmol is able to limit his trading options by listing 5 teams (to which he could not be traded, I believe). That may or may not be correct.
-
Can't believe Hendry couldn't have talked ownership into over slotting in the draft for Weiters or whomever...ridiculous.
If the Leader of the operation can't persuade the owner to spend a relatively amount, he hasn't made a good business case...almost certainly the case with Hendry, who always was intent on signing the next FA and never prioritized building the foundation.
From the end of 2006 until the time the Ricketts bought the team, Cub ownership was wanting to sell the team. They did not give a damb about the foundation of the organization.
They simply wanted to put lipstick on the pig.
Moves that might help the team win immediately, even if expensive, were fine. Moves to help with the foundation, even if they had been relatively inexpensive, were not.
Persuasion was not an issue in the decisions, particularly when he was not hired to help persuade the owners what to do or how much money to spend. Thinking it was some deficiency on Hendry's part to have been unable to persuade ownership to sink money into the foundation, when the ownership had no intention of holding onto the team long enough to ever see any return from that investment, misses not only what was happening, but also the goals of ownership, and the role of the GM.
-
Agree that if the Cubs chip in $8 plus Marmol, you could get a pretty good value right now. Without the salary, a number of teams would like to add a guy like that to their stable. I'd think you could get a Villanueva type prospect for him.
The other issue is what he wants. Hendry gave him no-trade; would he allow a trade to a contender who really wants him as a setup guy, not a closer? Or will he spike any deal in which he isn't given the close job? I just don't think many contenders will want to really hitch their wagon to a closer as wild as Marmol is.
I expect he'll not be traded, and the season will play out, and all values will evolve as the season progresses. But if he gets traded as a two-month rental at the end, you don't usually make a killing on those.
-
Dave, I think you underestimate Marmol's trading chip status. Surely he isn't where he was a couple years ago, and he isn't worth the money they're paying him, but "to pay all of his salary" doesn't compute. In that case, keep him and use him for setup. He'd be better than, say, Coleman.
I think that they should pay all his salary because they would then get a better prospect back. I do not underestimate his value. He was very good the last half of the season, after they talked him into using his fast ball, and if the Cubs keep him, I think he will be better than Fujikawa. But with the signing of Fujikawa, he is a prime trade bait at this time.
-
I do think that it's likely that Marmol's value in a trade is likely to be very underestimated here (assuming the Cubs pick up a healthy chunk of his salary). The conventional wisdom is that he's been bad the last two seasons. But when Marmol returned from his demotion and started using his fastball, he had 19 consecutive saves. Yeah, he's more erratic with the strike zone than you'd like, but he's still capable of being pretty unhittable.
-
Dave, I think you underestimate Marmol's trading chip status. Surely he isn't where he was a couple years ago, and he isn't worth the money they're paying him, but "to pay all of his salary" doesn't compute. In that case, keep him and use him for setup. He'd be better than, say, Coleman.
-
Cubs Den has added Mark DeRosa to their color man poll (while subtracting those who are out of the running) and he's rocketed to the #1 position.
http://www.chicagonow.com/cubs-den/2012/12/mark-de-rosa-a-candidate-for-cubs-color-man/ (http://www.chicagonow.com/cubs-den/2012/12/mark-de-rosa-a-candidate-for-cubs-color-man/)
-
When I talk about trading Marmol. I assume that the Cubs would pay essentially all of his salary. Without doing that, we would certainly get very little, since he is overpaid.
But if we pick up almost his entire salary, he suddenly becomes a reasonable trade chip. Teams that did not want to sign Fujikawa to a 10 million dollar, two year contract might well see Marmol as a cheap way to go over the top in the last two months of the season.
-
I'm all in favor of adding as many pitchers as possible this winter. The hitting prospects already in the system should be able to solve most of our offensive problems in the next two or three years, while most of our pitching prospects are still miles away.
-
Grilli had an incredible year last year, and has been excellent these last two. If he could continue like that, he'd help some team win some games. If he could reproduce that again, he could have some nice trade value in June. I hope we sign him, but I'm not sure whether that rumor has any substance, or remains of interest after getting Fuji. (Maybe the Cubs were pursuing both, and now the motivation for Grilli is reduced?)
Still, I don't see the motive from Grilli's side. It would have to be one of four things: much better dollars; a perceived chance to become closer; some personal connection/comfort-level with Hoyer or Sveum or something; or perhaps a very conscious expectation of getting traded to a contender later. Get a good-dollar deal now, but be sure to get trade to a contender later? Not sure a lot of guys feel that way. Grilli sure a weird career, not much to anticipate the year he had last year.
Anyway, we'll see.
I think all of this fits very much with the win-as-much-as-possible now without losing sight of the long-term Hoyer approach. It's hard to find good outfielders and 3B, and it's hard to sign them to short-term contracts. But relievers get used all the time, so between adding rotation and relief, anybody effective who can pitch will help win more games.
-
Marmol is the kind of guy who gains tremendous value when a contending team's closer goes down to injury. Since more than half of the closers last year went down for a considerable time, the opportune moment to trade Marmol will be when that happens...somewhere. New York, Baltimore, Toronto, across town, Detroit, LA, San Francisco, Texas. Off the top of my head are those; I think most other teams have backups.
-
I agree with dave, Marmol is a guy who could get traded if they think value is good. And given his age, impending free agency, and chronic control challenges, his long-term value to us is limited, so of course he'd be available. He's not that valuable to us, so if somebody offers real value, of course it makes sense to a rebuilding team.
But like deeg said, I just don't see where the trade value is. He's not that valuable to us, but he's not that desirable to other teams either. Are super-powers making so wild a pitcher a premium trade target, and eager to pay a serious prospect and his $9 million salary to rely on him as their closer? That ship has sailed. The other team could go for Soria, or could have gone for Madsen or Fuji, or for that matter Grilli.
My guess is that if you were able to trade him, it will either be for a high-risk overpay, as in the Haren crumble. Or some pretty modest prospect, more like Brigham than Vizcaino. And maybe you'd need to pay many of his millions even for that. He just doesn't pass the reliability test.
If he does go, I think it will be for somebody who acquires him as a late-inning depth guy. A setup person, as he was when Dempster was closing. Or just another possibility, in case their intended closer doesn't work. Madsen, old Rivera, Detroit, there are some teams who can't assume their desired closer will be good.
I hope he gets traded, because if so that will mean Hoyer thinks he's getting a value and I'm all for replacing short-term expiring assets for younger longer-term possibilities. But that's probably more wish than expectation.
I do think there could be value for his career to reorient to a setup guy. It seems like there is a much longer record of setups who are really wild than closers. In closer role, if a guy goes into a slump it's hard to live with. If you've emptied your pen getting to the 9th, you've got to live-or-die with the closer, whether he's on or not. But in 7th inning, if a guy is struggling for a while you can reduce his usage some until it gets better, or be quicker to pull him. Marmol may well have many inconsistently productive years ahead of him in that role, if his arm holds up.
-
If they can sign Grilli or a similar free agent for late-inning work, then they're likely to trade Marmol (hopefully before the deal leaks out). Otherwise, I suspect they'll keep him until the trade deadline, both to take some pressure off Fujikawa, Russell and Camp and to insure that Fujikawa has success against MLB hitters.
-
Marmol might not stick around, but if he is traded, it will be because Hoyer gets a good deal for him. I doubt that they will give him away cheap, while they have need of good arms in the pen.
-
But, when Hoyer says "really good number of arms", that sounds like quantity, not necessarily quality. Having a pile of Chapmans doesn't ensure you'll have good or marketable relievers.
craig, I'm thinking he's talking more about quality here. We tried this route last year or two with the Marcos Mateo's, Esmailin Caridad's, Manny Corpas's, Scott Maine's, Blake Parker's, etc. of the world, and we only wound up with a couple of reliable relievers out of it. I imagine when Hoyer says we have to take the pressure off Camp and Russell, he wants to make absolutely certain we're able to do that, instead of piling up a bunch of C grade relief prospects and over the hill vets and hoping one or two pan out.
It's why I think you might be right that Marmol could stick around after all.
-
It all sounds like revisionist history to me. Throw the old guy under the bus as much as possible.
-
I will say, I'm very skeptical about Hendry stepping in and telling Wilken not to take Parker over Vitters. In the 2003 draft, Hendry preferred taking Michael Aubrey since he was a college bat and the Cubs were in win now mode, but he deferred to Stockstill and let him take high schooler Ryan Harvey instead.
That doesn't sound like Hendry at all for him to overrule Wilken's judgment between Parker and Vitters, especially considering how much respect Hendry had for Wilken.
I don't know about Weiters or not, but the Parker/Vitters decision sounds like revisionist history to me.
-
Can't believe Hendry couldn't have talked ownership into over slotting in the draft for Weiters or whomever...ridiculous.
If the Leader of the operation can't persuade the owner to spend a relatively amount, he hasn't made a good business case...almost certainly the case with Hendry, who always was intent on signing the next FA and never prioritized building the foundation.
He was a very likeable, very good guy, who knew a lot about baseball and scouting, but was rather clueless about how to leverage statistics, build an organization or lead one in the modern era.
-
Im fine with him going back to the 7th/8th/crucial late situation role...he never should have left that role in the first place, imo...
-
Yeah, but the Angels signed Madson. That probably takes them out of the market.
-
The Angels were willing to trade for Marmol. And they were willing to give up a fair amount.
-
I like the Fujikawa signing - legit power pitcher. But while I'm sure Marmol will be traded, we won't get much for him. No decent team is going to want him as a closer, and no non-contender is likely to see any reason to trade for him at all.
-
The only way is it "obviously a poorly worded statement," is if you assume it to be one.
The only way it is NOT a poorly worded statement is if you are more concerned with playing "gotcha" than in communicating.
-
David Kaplan @thekapman
Look, here's the deal. Hendry was told in '06 to spend + try to win immediately. He spent and came close. That came at the expense of draft
I've heard that somewhere before.
-
Usually, it helps to consider the context, rather than to deconstruct what is obviously a poorly worded statement.
The only way is it "obviously a poorly worded statement," is if you assume it to be one.
It makes every bit as much sense to read it as I did, and, considering the wide variation in performance often seen among relievers from one year to the next, and the fact that the 2013 Cubs are not going to be contending, it is also an approach which would make more sense than spending heavily on relievers this winter. Two of the three relievers he mentioned having done well in 2012 (Camp and Russell) were little more than arms thrown into the mix, without a great deal of certainty they would come close to doing as well as they did. Before 2012, Russell had never had a major league season with an ERA as good as the league average, and he had not exactly dominated in the minors, and Camp was entering the season as a 36 year old who had an ERA of 4.21 in 2011.
Those are NOT "good arms" when they were seen as possible relievers for 2012. They were part of a collection of arms offered to Sveum to sort thru.
I would guess that the principal difference for 2013 will be that there will be even more of them for him to sort thru for 2013.
I look at the wording, look at the situation, and look at the track record (those things you might call context) and take it to mean they will look to add a "good number of arms."
You call that "deconstructing."
You look at the wording, project on it what it seems you would like it to mean, and truly ignore the context, and take it to mean the Cubs will look to add "a number of good arms.
I call that wishful thinking.
-
That Marlin guy on PSD says Jason Grilli could be the next reliever signed, just FWIW.
-
Usually, it helps to consider the context, rather than to deconstruct what is obviously a poorly worded statement.
Tried telling him that before, with the Puerto Rico mid-statement in trivia. It's like trying to teach algebra to an eggplant.
-
David Kaplan @thekapman
I've heard Mark DeRosa's name as potential Brenly replacement. Hollandsworth, Jim Deshaies, Karros, Mathews. Plesac/Sutcliffe not interested
-
Yes, Marmol is a free agent after the year.
-
Is this the last year of Marmol's contract?
-
Got to think the Marmol trade is coming soon. Who needs a closer? ....
I'm delighted that they were able to sign Fuji. He's been a good pitcher, and I think he could pitch effectively for us. Beats me, maybe his age and stuff won't hold up and he'll be not that good. But I'm glad to take a shot at a guy who at least has a shot to be pretty good. Why not hope that he'll work out and be good? And, even if they didn't sign him with the purpose of trading him, that possibility will still exist.
But I'm not sure this means a Marmol trade is coming. I don't think they're going to trade him if they don't get real prospect(s) back. Certainly Marmol could be traded if they get a good offer. But Marmol has a substantial salary and has been scary wild. So I'm not sure the demand is very substantial. Hoyer's comment was that they didn't have enough good relievers, which put too much pressure on the three that they had. To sign Fuji only to dump Marmol would just get you right back to three. I don't assume that Fuji was promised to close. If he's good, and Marmol is wild, Fuji may well win that job. But it wouldn't surprise me if he was promised nothing, and his agent simply evaluated the landscape and thought he'd have his best chance this way. But if the Cubs don't get a really good offer for Marmol, and if Marmol doesn't pitch himself out of the job, perhaps Fuji will function as a setup guy.
Also true that Marmol's best years were as a setup. Might not be the worst thing if he returned to that role. He might actually be better, and perhaps he'd be more tradable in that role than as a closer.
-
Notice the wording.
Bringing in a "really good number of arms," and not a number of really good arms. Bring in enough arms, even if all of them are poor, and it will take Sveum a few outings to determine each one is crappy, and you can reduce the workload on whatever good arms there are on the roster.
If you read it that way, then there was absolutely no reason for him to make that statement. They already had a "good number of arms" last year, and they would have a "god number of arms" this year whether they brought any in or not. They went with a 12 man staff last year, and are almost certain to go with a 12 man staff this year, even if they sign no one at all.
On the other hand, if you read it to mean "a number of good arms", it DOES make sense, since last year they did NOT have a number of good arms, and will not this year unless they bring some in from the outside.
Usually, it helps to consider the context, rather than to deconstruct what is obviously a poorly worded statement.
-
That's not too bad for a reliever that should be a big part of our pen.
I dont see how a lot of people can complain about this.
-
David Kaplan @thekapman
In addition 2 Wieters, Cubs were close to drafting Jarrod Parker that draft. Mgmt didn't want risk of HS arm They had Vitters below other 2
Ron, thanks for those quotes. Fascinating, if true. So, Wilken liked Parker and Wieters ahead of Vitters, but ownership said Wieters would cost too much, and "Mgmt" opted against Parker? That being Wilken? "Hmm, I like the Vitters bat and arm, I really like Parker even better, but he's a pitcher and his arm. Is he better enough to risk the shot arm? Maybe I don't like him that much better...." Or Wilken wanted to take him despite the risk, and it was "Mgmt" = Hendry who said "Too risky?"
-
Paul Sullivan @PWSullivan
Hey @thekapman You can stop now. We get it. Ricketts, Theo and Jed are all the greatest.
-
Here's what Keith Law had to say about Fujikawa in his top 50 free agent rankings (he had him ranked #30):
The closer for the Hanshin Tigers is a true free agent now at age 32 after a successful 12-year NPB career that saw him strike out one out of every three batters he faced.
He's not as dominant as he used to be and pitches with a solid-average fastball and a good splitter that is occasionally plus, showing more of a steady drop than the abrupt tumble of a really good splitter. He also missed some time in 2012 with an adductor strain, and hasn't thrown 70 innings in a season since 2007.
He has potential as a setup man but I don't think he's an elite reliever unless that splitter gets sharper or more consistent.
Just FWIW, Law doesn't normally rank relievers very high, so #30 is a pretty strong ranking. There were three ahead of him on the list: Rivera at #12, Soriano at #14, and Madson at #21.
-
David Kaplan @thekapman
Look, here's the deal. Hendry was told in '06 to spend + try to win immediately. He spent and came close. That came at the expense of draft
-
David Kaplan @thekapman
In addition 2 Wieters, Cubs were close to drafting Jarrod Parker that draft. Mgmt didn't want risk of HS arm They had Vitters below other 2
-
David Kaplan @thekapman
That was before Ricketts took over and money wasn't there for over slot signings. Wilken loved him.
-
Another tweet from Kaplan. If true, sure is interesting.
David Kaplan @thekapman
How about this: When Cubs drafted Vitters the guy that Tim Wilken wanted but wasn't allowed to sign was Orioles star catcher Matt Wieters.
-
Some tweets from David Kaplan, whose information seems to be as good as anyone since the new front office took over.
Cubs skeptical they can move Soriano. They will not eat all the remaining dollars unless they get something good in return. No point.
Signing of Fujikawa not done to flip him. They like skill set + are trying to upgrade pitching staff. More moves coming.
Sources tell me not done on adding starters. Cubs will head to Nashville looking to add another starter and a RF. Third base tough to fill.
@TheRealCrowhuck @BleacherNation Vitters is not considered much of a prospect among the scouts in baseball that I've talked to recently.
-
The Yankees make a lot of sense, especially with the Hendry and Rothschild connections.
Then again, those might also be reasons why it'd have no prayer of happening.
-
Got to think the Marmol trade is coming soon. Who needs a closer?
The Tigers do, probably...maybe for Porcello?
The Yankees are supposedly looking for someone to set up Rivera who has closing experience in case he has trouble coming back from that injury.
-
We will be bitterly disappointed in our return for Marmol or giddy with excitement over what a haul we got. I'll bet on the former. And the folks at NSBB will have their heads explode.
-
Our success with Japanese players has been spectacular!
-
It will be interesting to see long it will be until Carlos Marmol is traded, and what return will they get.
-
Guess the opportunity to close sealed the deal...hope he's as good as advertised...
-
Ken Rosenthal @Ken_Rosenthal
Fujikawa deal with #Cubs is two years with a vesting option for a third. He likely will be the team's closer.
-
Good column from Patrick Mooney, including interesting quotes from Hoyer.
http://www.csnchicago.com/baseball-chicago-cubs/cubs-talk/The-winter-meetings-Fujikawa-and-where-t?blockID=808363&feedID=10336
“Every team in baseball wants to have an assortment of guys back there that – if the need arises – can pitch in the ninth inning. Hopefully, we can do that. Our bullpen put too much pressure last year on (Shawn) Camp and Russell and Marmol and we have to avoid that. We need to bring in a really good number of arms to make that goal a reality.”
Notice the wording.
Bringing in a "really good number of arms," and not a number of really good arms. Bring in enough arms, even if all of them are poor, and it will take Sveum a few outings to determine each one is crappy, and you can reduce the workload on whatever good arms there are on the roster.
-
Ken Rosenthal @Ken_Rosenthal
Sources: #Cubs in agreement with Japanese closer Kyuji Fujikawa. Rival executives involved in bidding had expected him to go to #Angels.
-
Not really news, but from MLB Trade Rumors:
The Cubs expect to meet with teams regarding Alfonso Soriano during the upcoming winter meetings in Nashville, major league sources tell Jon Paul Morosi and Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports. Soriano holds a full no-trade clause and is owed a total of $36MM over the next two seasons.
The 36-year-old is still likely to garner strong interest from teams who need right-handed power and the Cubs are willing to include cash in the deal to make it work. Soriano may be more valuable than expected, when considering the two-year, $10MM contract free agent Jonny Gomes just received from the Red Sox. The Phillies would appear to be a strong fit for Soriano as they are still looking for a right-handed outfield bat to replace Hunter Pence, who was shipped to the Giants at the trade deadline.
-
Poor Chapman. There is Craig again, kicking a guy when he is down?
Poor Nic Jackson has never recovered.
-
Thanks for that link, Ron. I largely depend on links that are posted here, and that was another interesting one to read. It's always helpful to read or listen to what the decision-makers are actually saying about the decisions they are or aren't making. All of which seems pretty practical and reasonable to me thus far.
“We’re still trying to build to a point where we have a ton of young talent and a lot of available money to spend to really have that team (with) sustained success.”
Concise, and honest about the "lot of available money". Pretty obvious they aren't going to approach the kind of spending level presently that they may be able to spend later. I won't be at all surprised to see payrolls now that are many tens of millions below what they might be able to accommodate if they ever get good.
"Our bullpen put too much pressure last year on (Shawn) Camp and Russell and Marmol and we have to avoid that. We need to bring in a really good number of arms to make that goal a reality.”
Absolutely agree that there was too much pressure on the small number of competent guys, and that they can and should deepen the *quality* of their relievers. Depending on what's mean by "a really good number of arms", I may or may not agree there.
I am pretty interested in pursuing guys who might be good relievers. And they don't need to be really young. First, I'm a big believer in the importance of the bullpen for winning games. Having a depth of good relievers is really good for winning, (to whatever extent that's desired). But effective relievers are also one of the most marketable commodities in the trade summer. There are always contenders who need them, and if you have some to shop, you can make some good trades.
But, when Hoyer says "really good number of arms", that sounds like quantity, not necessarily quality. Having a pile of Chapmans doesn't ensure you'll have good or marketable relievers.
-
What can I say? I get lonely.
-
Ron's starting to talk to himself.
-
Good column from Patrick Mooney, including interesting quotes from Hoyer.
http://www.csnchicago.com/baseball-chicago-cubs/cubs-talk/The-winter-meetings-Fujikawa-and-where-t?blockID=808363&feedID=10336
-
If they worked out a deal in advance, then it would keep them in the organization, at least until the rule v draft.
-
Would it make them free agents and skip the waiver wire making it easier to keep them in the organization?
-
the non-tender rather than DFA because now they can sign them to a minor league contract. It is a way of getting them off the 40 man roster without exposing them to waivers.
However, they are now subject to the rule v draft. So we could lose Coleman anyway.
-
And Ian Stewart is a scrub.
Good riddance.
-
I don't think that's too shocking about Chapman. He is kind of a replaceable relief prospect.
By the way, why would they do a non-tender for guys like Chapman and Putnam instead of designating them for assignment?
-
Casey Coleman cleared waivers and was outrighted to AAA.
Shocker
-
Yeah spending 100 million on Michael Bourne would be real smart for a rebuilding team.
-
Casey Coleman cleared waivers and was outrighted to AAA.
-
Surprised about Chapman. I thought he had been expected to be in the bullpen next season.
-
The Cubs have non-tendered Ian Stewart, Jaye Chapman, and Zach Putnam according to MLB.com's Carrie Muskat (on Twitter).
-
If defense is enough, let's play Jackson in CF and Stewart or Valbuena at third.
-
The Giants need a CF, but they really want to bring back Pagan. The Reds need a CF, but probably don't have the money to spend for Bourn. The Mets, maybe?
I wouldn't be all that excited about Bourn because virtually all his value is tied up in his speed. A leg injury or two, and he's bad. Maybe his legs age like Pierre's have...but if they don't, he's a huge albatross halfway through his deal.
He's definitely the type of guy I'd prefer giving more per year for fewer years.
The thing that interests me about Bourn is how good he would make our defense if we signed him. If Soriano 2012 shows up again and we signed an above average defensive 3B, Bourn would give us a truly excellent defense. That'd probably make hard luck pitchers like Feldman pretty happy.
Still $100 million is way too much to pay in this situation. Bourn on a 3 year deal would be pretty interesting I think.
-
The Cubs could have had Upton for the same money or less, and Upton is much better than Bourne.
-
The Giants need a CF, but they really want to bring back Pagan. The Reds need a CF, but probably don't have the money to spend for Bourn. The Mets, maybe?
I wouldn't be all that excited about Bourn because virtually all his value is tied up in his speed. A leg injury or two, and he's bad. Maybe his legs age like Pierre's have...but if they don't, he's a huge albatross halfway through his deal.
He's definitely the type of guy I'd prefer giving more per year for fewer years.
-
I was wondering if Bourn made somewhat decent sense for a rebuilding team. Of course, then I read this, and I think not.
Bourn, whose agent, Scott Boras, will be seeking more than $100 million for the speedy outfielder . . .
Then again, the only team with a CF hole and with money to spend is Philadelphia isn't it?
-
Huh, there may be something to that Marlin guy over on PSD. Earlier today, he says the Cubs are dark horses for Bourn, and now this:
http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/cubs/post/_/id/14219/cubs-interested-in-michael-bourn
-
If they non-tender both Stewart and Valbuena, I suspect it is just to clear roster space for draft and free agents. Especially with Valbuena, they would save little money, and I would expect to non-tender and resign him at the same time.
-
Putting two and two together and maybe getting five: Josh Vitters left Venezuela because he knew he was history.
I think someone reported here that Vitters is being re-assigned to another Venezuelan team where he will get more ABs.
-
I know Valbuena isn't very good. But he does have some decent tools, and could become pretty valuable quickly if he can boost his BA 25-30 points. Given the complete lack of competent middle infielders on the free agent market, I'd think there would be at least a little interest in him from teams other than the Cubs. So unless they have a handshake agreement already, I'd really rather they just go on and tender him a contract.
I mean, non-tendering him and bringing him back on a minor league deal will result in what, a savings of what, $300K? That's not much by MLB payroll standards. And I'm kind of doubtful that there is anyone better on the free agent market who would cost less and be a decent primary infield backup.
-
Putting two and two together and maybe getting five: Josh Vitters left Venezuela because he knew he was history.
-
Stewart at this point offers one of the best opportunities around for creating value. They should be able to sign him cheap, and if he does as well as he has already done in the past (which I still doubt he will do, but since he certainly his age should not preclude him from doing as well as he has already shown he can do), he would likely bring a nice mid-season return. Looking at the talent on the roster, you would have to assume that Theo still has a goal of creating value where now it does not exist.
-
Here's the link to the (free) Sullivan article.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/breaking/chi-chicago-cubs-news-cubs-could-nontender-two-players-20121130,0,2665621.story
-
Maybe Hoyer just misspoke. But if he didn't, it sounds likely that they'll go outside the organization for next year's third baseman.
The fact that they nontender someone doesn't mean they won't resign him. In fact, Hoyer apparently specifically said they hope to sign anybody they nontender.
-
I wonder what it would take to lure Derek Bell off of his houseboat....
-
Jordan Bernfield @JordanBernfield
#Cubs Hoyer: "We have to address our outfield and we'll look to do that." Says prospects are far enough away they're not blocking w/ vets.
Sounds like they have a lot of confidence in Brett Jackson. (purple)
-
From the Bleacher Nation blog:
According to Paul Sullivan, Carrie Muskat, and Bruce Miles on Twitter, Cubs GM Jed Hoyer said a couple interesting things this afternoon:
(1) He expects the Cubs’ 40-man roster to be under 40 by tonight (it currently stands at 40); and
(2) The Cubs are “very likely” (per Sullivan) to have a couple non-tenders (Muskat used the words “may have a couple non-tendered”).
A couple non-tenders? The arb eligible players on the roster are Garza, Samardzija, Russell, Valbuena, and Stewart. If there are two non-tenders, then you have to assume that Stewart is one of them. But who is the other? I guess Valbuena is the obvious one...but we've heard nothing but how the Cubs are likely to keep him (and really, I don't think there's a more cost effective mutli-position infield backup on the market). But I guess Valbuena has to be it--Russell is cheap and the Cubs don't have many relief pitchers. Samardzija is the third most important player on the 40 man right now behind Castro and Rizzo. And unless Garza is going to have to have TJ and they've kept it quiet, he's not getting non-tendered.
Maybe Hoyer just misspoke. But if he didn't, it sounds likely that they'll go outside the organization for next year's third baseman.
-
The fact that Stewart is still working out with Cubs trainers and coaches, rehabbing at the team's Arizona facilities indicates the Theocracy is still considering him.
And from Stewart's perspective, he should realize that Chicago would give him a far stronger opportunity for early season playing time than most teams, and that a one year deal with the Cubs and a return to health and performance would make it much lore likely for him to end up in the post-season than signing with many other teams would, since health and performance would mean a mid-season to a contender and a great chance for a nice multi-year contract a year from now.
-
Either that, or they think that his wrist isn't worth a 2 million dollar gamble.
Or, of course, it could be a combination of both, and other factors we are ignorant of.
-
If they don't re-sign Stewart, we'll know for certain that he has some fatal flaw in his "intangibles", as reckoned by current leadership.
-
I think br is right. Lots of things going on behind the scenes right now...no need to cut somebody loose until you absolutely have to.
-
I don't know, maybe they're trying to work up to the deadline to get him to sign for something like $1-$1.5 million. Or maybe they're working on a trade for third base, but want to wait as long as possible to make sure the deal goes through.
-
I'd almost have to think if we were planning on non-tendering him, we would have done it already, right?
-
The non-tender deadline is tonight at midnight. You'd expect something to happen with Ian Stewart today (either an agreement on a contract that is cheaper than what he'd get through arbitration, or a non-tender) because it's pretty doubtful he'd get ~$2.5 million on the open market.
-
Tommy John surgeries?
-
http://www.csnchicago.com/baseball-chicago-cubs/cubs-talk/Scott-Harris-named-Cubs-director-of-base?blockID=807711&feedID=10336
Harris is 25 and was an intern for the Reds and Nationals in 2010.... just what does the director of baseball operations do?
-
Dave Kaplan also mentioned that Jackson and Barney were working in Arizona....
http://www.csnchicago.com/baseball-chicago-cubs/cubs-talk/Cubs-completely-redo-Wrigley-playing-sur?blockID=806771&feedID=10336
Barney, who is currently hard at work along with center fielder Brett Jackson with the Cubs hitting coaches in Arizona, is excited to get back to playing at the Friendly Confines.
dave, hadn't Jackson had been sent back home after several weeks in Arizona?
Is he back there now after some time off?
-
Carrie Muskat has new piece on Rob Deer and the work he's already been doing in Arizona with Brett Jackson and Darwin Barney.
http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20121129&content_id=40457710&vkey=news_chc&c_id=chc&tcid=tw_article_40457710
-
The Cubs appear to be finalists to get Fujikawa:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-report-cubs-finalist-japanese-closer-20121129,0,1943973.story
-
It just occurred to me. Ryan Theriot has TWO World Series rings since leaving the Cubs.
I'm sick.
-
But is our 6th guy currently Belken/Raley/Coleman/Rusin/Germano?
Germano is gone. Don't know if any of the others are as well.
-
As far as bringing in a swing man or potential #6 or #7 starters go, I wonder if Theo will bring in pitchers with the promise of them "competing" with Travis Wood for the #5 starter spot.
I don't think there's a dime's worth of difference between Feldman and Wood, and I really think Wood is probably a little better bet to be productive than Feldman next year.
Still, we really need to bring in some possibilities for backup starting pitchers. The difference between 100 losses and 120 losses may not matter to some fans, but I don't think Theo wants us trotting out complete embarrassments like Coleman or Belken next season if we have holes in the rotation. They'll probably want a little bit better depth in starting pitching than we had this past season.
Pretty much, Samardzija, Garza, Baker, and Feldman are safely in the rotation, so unless the Theocracy is satisfied with Brooks Raley and Nick Struck starting games for us next year, you have to imagine Travis Wood will at least get some veteran competition in camp next spring.
I think this is a very good point. Samardz, Garza, Baker, Feldman, and Wood might prove to be a pretty respectable rotation. But is our 6th guy currently Belken/Raley/Coleman/Rusin/Germano? I've got to assume they aren't finished with rotation pickups. Certainly those 5 might end up all being somewhere from OK to good to perhaps excellent. But we saw Wood pitch himself out of the rotation last spring, and look terrible at times. Feldman may be persistently unlucky, but he's been a 5+ ERA guy in three of his four seasons as a starter. Garza and Baker are both injured now, so expecting them to be ready for full rotation responsibilities is iffy. And for Baker being able to pitch is one thing; being able to pitch well is another. AFter surgery guys aren't always as good as they were before, and he wasn't so great that he can afford a very substantial reduction in efficiency. And of course there is the possiblity of trade, sooner (Garza?) or later.
So it sure seems to me that Hoyer shouldn't be done yet, and that adding another one or two Feldman/Baker type guys, if not better, could still make a lot of sense.
-
Casey Coleman has been designated for assignment to make room for Feldman.
-
Can anyone translate this?
No...even after reading it twice...
-
"I think last year, if you look inside his numbers, the numbers were not what he probably hoped, but they were pretty misleading. If you look at his ratios and different underlying numbers, he's one of the most unlucky pitchers in the game last year. While it wasn't his best year, it certainly wasn't nearly as bad as the ERA on the page says it was."
------------------------------------
"We always liked his stuff," Hoyer said. "He gets ground balls, he's got a really good walk-to-strikeout ratio and he's pitched in a very difficult environment. He pitched in the American League and pitched in Texas and that's hard. We felt he was a guy, given his stuff, given his age and given the ability to come to the National League and not pitch in Texas, we felt it was a great opportunity for us to add a quality arm."
-
As was said above, guys with good stuff and good command go quickly. That applies to the draft as well as free agency. As they move down in the draft rounds, it becomes more reasonable to take some guys with good stuff/bad control in the hopes that a few will solve their command problems.
-
Interesting to wonder how that will play for the draft. With teenagers, obviously there is a lot of scouting projection involved, both for whether the guy will end up throwing hard, and for whether he'll have control. But this draft was interesting in that we took Blackburn in the first and then Underwood shortly thereafter in the second. Blackburn came with and has since been reported as a very polished control-type pitcher, but with very fringy stuff. Underwood seemed to come with more stuff and much less control. My guess is there was probably a healthy balance of projection and scouting in both picks. They projected that Underwood could throw harder more consistently, and that Underwood might someday be able to pitch with control. They knew that Blackburn showed good control, but projected that he'd be able to throw with good velocity and good stuff. There were reports that Blackburn had been throwing a lot of 90's in the late spring, and was flashing 92-93 maybe even 94 in some tryout camps. Perhaps the Cubs scouted/projected that that was real, and that he'd be able to sustain that and perhaps become more consistent with that, or get even faster, in due time. The summer and fall reports suggested otherwise, of course, suggesting that he consistently lived in the upper/mid 80's instead. Perhaps that's all exactly what they expected, but my guess is they were probably disappointed by what they saw. Probably just a scouting mistake there. Or, perhaps that's just a brief sample for a teenager, and in a year or two or three he will be maturing physically and working regularly in the 90-93 range, and occasionally touching 95 or 96? If so, maybe he'll end up being all that they hoped for when they drafted him after all. But an interesting case, I think, where the stuff that Blackburn was flashing in Mesa was certainly less stuff-wise than what Hendry would have spent a sandwich pick on back when he was draft boss.
-
Theo said he'd prioritize low-walk guys, and he's done that. All of the pitchers they've picked up, whether Camp or Volstad or Germano or Baker or Feldman or Maholm, they've all had low walk rates.
Really good pitchers aren't available for modest money and short commitments. If a guy was a low-walk guy and had good stuff and anti-HR besides, he'd not be available at garage sale prices. Obviously low-walk low-HR good-stuff pitchers aren't available for $6/1 and aren't getting traded for Carlos Zambrano.
For Theo, it appears that the low-walks seems to be priority, and he's willing to compromise stuff and HR's-allowed in order to get that. I think Hendry tended to prioritize stuff more, and was willing to bear with more walks . I suspect that a pitcher with good stuff and iffy walks, there's the perception of more upside in the event that the control improves.
Hopefully days will come eventually where we have some prospects with both low-walk control, and good-K anti-HR stuff besides. And hopefully days will come where the rest of the roster is big-league enough so that it could both make sense for the Cubs to pay the price for a good free agent, and make sense for a good free agent to actually consider the Cubs.
-
It's silly to say people are complaining because Theo is doing what he said to do, because the guys he's bringing in - while they may nominally fit the model - aren't good baseball players by and large. They're space fillers so we can field a team for the next 100-loss season.
-
I guess I remembered wrong, I thought it was more negative or indifferent. My point still stands though, if Baker comes back healthy he's far superior to Maholm or Feldman. Feldman and Maholm are pretty close.
-
Actually the Maholm deal was a better deal for the Cubs than Feldman. $4.25M for Maholm last year with a club option compared to 1 year, $6M without an option for Feldman.
Really Maholm probably should look for a new agent. He should have done a lot better.
-
BTW nice call by UK there . . .
-
Maholm looks a lot more like Feldman prior to coming to the Cubs than he looks like Baker. What was the board reaction when the Cubs signed Maholm?
Pretty positive reaction actually . . .
1 year, $4.25 million for Maholm with a $6.5 million club option for 2013. Not bad at all.
I'd definitely agree with that. I'm a little surprised he couldn't do better.
Happy we got him...I watched him pitch in HS, in college, and now he's a Cub...nice!
Wow, that's a club friendly deal. I'm surprised he couldn't get a better deal.
Maholm's contract will look even better come July.
If his ERA is as glossy as it was last year, at worst, they could get a mid-level prospect for him.
I'm all for Wells becoming a situational righty once the rotation takes shape.
I haven't looked at the FA market as far as relievers but I assume there is some value on the board as far as a setup guy.
That Maholm deal is a steal.
-
I'd agree that Baker is clearly a better pitcher than Maholm or Feldman if he come back healthy, but Maholm and Feldman are a lot closer than you think.
Maholm WAR 1.4, 1.8, 2.8, 3.2, 1.9, 1.9. His xFIP in 2011 4.03, FIP 3.78. Career K/9 5.71, BB/9 2.94.
Feldman WAR 0.9, 3.5, 1.3, 0.3, 2.3. His xFIP in 2012 3.87, FIP 3.81. Career K/9 5.36, BB/9 3.12.
Baker WAR 1.1, 0.7, 2.9, 3.5, 3.5, 2.6, 2.8 xFIP in 2011 3.61, FIP 3.45. Career k/9 7.23, BB/9 2.10
Maholm looks a lot more like Feldman prior to coming to the Cubs than he looks like Baker. What was the board reaction when the Cubs signed Maholm?
-
Pretty much, Baker has a lot more potential to bring in a Maholm type return than Feldman, IMHO.
-
JR - the operative phrase was "until the July trading deadline". I think, and even hope, that they will make trades in July similar to those they made last year. I have no idea what Feldman or baker could bring in at that point, but a year ago at this time, I doubt that anyone thought Maholm could bring back Vizcaino.
You might be right Dave, but Maholm did have a better track record of success than Feldman when we signed Maholm. If Feldman's peripherals from 2012 hold up, he possibly/probably could fetch a solid prospect or two. More than likely, I'm guessing that his 2012 peripherals were a fluke, and he'll go back to being the mediocre innings eater/swing man that he was for most of his career in Texas. I guess if we were taking gamb les on starting pitchers, I'd like to see us bring in with someone with more potential, but we'll see how things work out.
BTW I do like Baker, though. If he's all the way back from Tommy John, I think he could bring a pretty good prospect or two at the trade deadline. I wouldn't even put it outside the realm of possibility that we might extend him for 2-3 years.
-
As far as bringing in a swing man or potential #6 or #7 starters go, I wonder if Theo will bring in pitchers with the promise of them "competing" with Travis Wood for the #5 starter spot.
I don't think there's a dime's worth of difference between Feldman and Wood, and I really think Wood is probably a little better bet to be productive than Feldman next year.
Still, we really need to bring in some possibilities for backup starting pitchers. The difference between 100 losses and 120 losses may not matter to some fans, but I don't think Theo wants us trotting out complete embarrassments like Coleman or Belken next season if we have holes in the rotation. They'll probably want a little bit better depth in starting pitching than we had this past season.
Pretty much, Samardzija, Garza, Baker, and Feldman are safely in the rotation, so unless the Theocracy is satisfied with Brooks Raley and Nick Struck starting games for us next year, you have to imagine Travis Wood will at least get some veteran competition in camp next spring.
-
JR - the operative phrase was "until the July trading deadline". I think, and even hope, that they will make trades in July similar to those they made last year. I have no idea what Feldman or baker could bring in at that point, but a year ago at this time, I doubt that anyone thought Maholm could bring back Vizcaino.
-
Oh, ye of little faith....
The Cubs of 2013 have every chance of actually being worse than they were in 2012. At the 2012 trade deadline, the Cubs were 43-59, and went 18-42 the rest of the way, actually playing better after the trade deadline than before it.
Can anyone translate this?
-
Feldman's deal is for 1 year, $6 million with $1 million in incentives. Sounds a little pricey for a guy who has been pretty mediocre in his career. And it probably also means they see him as a starter, not a swing guy.
One thought about Feldman being pricey, the Cubs are pretty much going to have to overpay for whatever free agents they bring in. Feldman I'm sure is coming to the Cubs with the expectation that we're not going to be very good and that he'll be dealt at the trade deadline if he's any good.
That can't be the ideal situation for a veteran pitcher even for Feldman, so if we want to bring him in, we'll have to pay him the highest salary he could reasonably expect. As long as we're bringing in guys like that under one year contracts, it isn't all bad.
-
....the Cubs will be a lot better this year than they were last year, at least until the July trading deadline.
Oh, ye of little faith....
The Cubs of 2013 have every chance of actually being worse than they were in 2012. At the 2012 trade deadline, the Cubs were 43-59, and went 18-42 the rest of the way, actually playing better after the trade deadline than before it.
-
We as Cubs fans seem to be having trouble with the fact that, after Epstein and Hoyer tell us what they plan to do, they actually do it.
Dave, I'd agree that this is well within what Theo said he'd do when he took over. He said there would be no quick fixes, and this is well within what he said about that. And I think that's an appropriate strategy. I'd rather be signing Scott Feldman for one year than Jeremy Guthrie for three years. (Quite frankly, Feldman at one year sounds better to me than Guthrie at three years, even if we were trying to be contenders this year.)
I would disagree that I have many expectations that we'll be better next year than last year, though. I don't see too many areas where we're projected to be better, and a lot of these guys we're signing will likely be traded off at the deadline. Like br said, Feldman isn't a high ceiling signing to me. I think Baker is a relatively high ceiling signing because he's proven to get a decent number of strikeouts when he's healthy. Feldman's ceiling (unless he's able to keep up his respectable but not great K numbers and good BB numbers from last year) is pretty much as a #4 or #5 starter. I just don't see a whole lot of great value in that, and guys like that won't bring a lot of value back at the trade deadline.
More than likely, we'll be paying Feldman to eat up innings instead of being a very productive pitcher. That's well within Theo's framework of where he's going, but I'd still like to see is lose fewer than 100 games in 2013. I'm not sure Feldman does a lot to help us out with that.
-
This dude {Feldman} sucks.
I dont even know why we've wasted 2 pages talking about him let alone giving him that much money?
-
Yes an ERA of 4.19. He could also get moved to the bullpen and have some value as a setup guy. 1 year and $6 million will make him tradeable if he performs and if not he isn't going to keep the Cubs from doing anything.
-
Here's another Fangraphs piece today on Feldman. What jumps out at me is that 11.4% of his runs allowed were unearned so, as Hoyer pointed out in his comments, he pitched in some hard luck. His FIP for 2012 was 3.81.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/cubs-sign-scott-feldman-land-another-bargain/
3.81 isn't too bad. I also agree with the comment tico made that getting out of Texas could knock a couple of HR's off, as could getting away from the DH. I'd think his IP/HR ratio might get on the right side of 10:1 in the NL.
-
His DIP numbers aren't bad and Bill James projected him to have an ERA of just above for 2013. For $6 million that isn't too bad.
Just above what? 4.0?
He's got a career ERA+ of 95, so that's more anti-awful than Germano and Coleman. 2012 was his second season where he was kept in the majors all year, and didn't have any minor-league assignments. He's had four seasons with >50 innings, and had ERA's over 5 in three of those, but was below 5 once, so what's happened once could happen again. And to be given 20 or more starts in four different seasons, I'm not sure that will ever happen for Raley or Coleman or Rusin. (Although it might, who knows....)
There is value in anti-awful, and I'd think a guy like Feldman could help prevent another 100-loss season. Doesn't seem likely to be a real hot trade chip, but in July there can be teams where an anti-awful starter is of some value.
-
Here's another Fangraphs piece today on Feldman. What jumps out at me is that 11.4% of his runs allowed were unearned so, as Hoyer pointed out in his comments, he pitched in some hard luck. His FIP for 2012 was 3.81.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/cubs-sign-scott-feldman-land-another-bargain/
-
His DIP numbers aren't bad and Bill James projected him to have an ERA of just above for 2013. For $6 million that isn't too bad.
-
Feldman is another castoff, a guy with borderline AAAA stuff to be a warm body. It's no big deal either way to spend money in 2013, but $6 million is way too much for a guy with his numbers.
-
Feldman = Bizarro Kramer
LOL
-
Feldman = Bizarro Kramer
-
When Maholm was signed, he wasn't hailed as the "value signing of the year" either.
The Cubs seem to be moving away from the Rich Harden/Carlos Zambrano type of pitchers, who may dominate for the first half of the game, but reach their pitch count maximums before the fifth inning is over. Strike outs are being sacrificed for low walk levels.
-
And I disagree that Baker signing is obviously better or might translate into better value. We're still counting on a somewhat speedy recovery for him to be able to establish trade value.
-
Re: Feldman's HR rate, it's not unrealistic to expect a nice drop moving from the AL and Arlington no less, to the NL.
-
Muskat says a 40 man roster spot will be cleared for Feldman by the end of the day. It'll probably just be a Coleman DFA or something...but maybe another move could be in the works.
-
It's all part of Theo's devious plan to corner the market for sixth starters.
-
Their rotation is so awful that he will get a chance to start.
-
How on earth are the current Cubs a "dream scenario" for any major league player right now? Did he grow up a diehard Cubs fan or something? Even then...
-
CSNChicago beat writer Patrick Mooney on Twitter:
@CSNMooney
Hoyer on Feldman: "We clearly see him as a starter."
Feldman: "The #Cubs were like a dream scenario for me."
@espnchijon Six minutes into introductory conference call, Feldman was asked about Cubs dealing at the trade deadline. #goldentee
Hoyer says #Cubs targeted Feldman/Baker but will keep looking - it's too early in offseason to rule out multiyear deal for rotation.
Hoyer also said that the starting pitcher would have to be the right player at the right price to get that kind of commitment from #Cubs.
-
I just don't think Feldman really fits as one of those value pitchers that you're talking about. I loved the Baker signing because it fits perfectly with guys like DeJesus and Maholm--guys with average tools, but well above average ability to play the game. Certainly not a Hendry-type guy like Marmol or Soriano, who has one or two great tools and is pretty mediocre (or worse) otherwise.
But to me, Feldman is really just an "eh" player. Not much upside, and not much history of performance. He's more post-arm injury Randy Wells than he is Scott Baker.
Not that I think it's a bad signing. With the cost of free agent pitching being as high as it is, Feldman's improving peripherals, and the fact that he's played his whole career in the second best hitter's park in baseball, he's a worthwhile low risk, medium reward signing. But he's not an obvious "value signing of the year" candidate like Baker or Maholm.
-
We as Cubs fans seem to be having trouble with the fact that, after Epstein and Hoyer tell us what they plan to do, they actually do it.
They say that they value pitchers that can command the strike zone over pitchers with outstanding stuff and no command. Then they bring in two pitchers with command of the strike zone and less outstanding stuff rather than pitchers with outstanding stuff and no command.
They tell us they value players who can play good defense and can grind out at bats, rather than the erratic high-tools, low performance guys. then they go out and sign guys that can play good defense and grind out at bats.
They are implementing the philosophy that Craig has talked about for years - fill every position with a guy that, at the very least, is anti-awful.
For decades, the typical Cubs team has been one that had two or three (at best) stars, surrounded by a cast of dozens that stunk. On good years, they could actually compete with the rest of the league, until August or September, when class starts to tell. Now, they are telling us that they will not try to bring in the stars (or whatever you call them) until the foundation has been built. Once that is done, the stars will come, either through the farm system or through free agency. But they have pretty much told us that they are NOT going after high priced free agents this year, and I suspect that unless there is an amazing bargain out there, that is exactly what they will do (actually, not do).
Baker and Feldman will not be Nolan Ryans. Nor will they be Justin Germanos. And the Cubs will be a lot better this year than they were last year, at least until the July trading deadline.
-
I also wonder if there may be more trade interest in Garza than we'd expect. If healthy, he's an obvious "qualifying offer" guy next offseason, but any team that trades for him midseason loses out on that. I wonder if the price of pitching on the free agent market, the lack of difference makers, and the new CBA might work together to make him a worthwhile risk to someone if his medicals look fine. So maybe the front office is still thinking there could be one more hole in the rotation than we expect at this point.
-
Also between Garza, Baker, and Feldman, we really do need a lot of depth in our 6th, 7th, and 8th starting pitchers. We certainly can't count on all of those guys to stay healthy, and I imagine we'll be using those guys as trade bait later on in the season as well. Granted, for some people, it may not matter if we lose 100 games or 120 games, but when those guys get hurt or get traded, I'd like to at least see us use more respectable pitchers than Casey Coleman and Jason Berken next season.
If Feldman isn't brought on to be the 6th starter, it'll be interesting to see what we do about that.
-
Fangraphs is talking him about making improvements over the last two years, but in 2011, he only made 2 starts and pitched only 32 innings. So basically, they're counting on his peripherals from 2012 carrying over to next season.
If Feldman's improvement in peripherals in 2012 is for real, then yeah, we might get lucky and have a respectable 3rd or 4th starter. If his strikeout rate last year was a fluke and he goes back to the pitcher he's been for most of his career, then we're basically paying him to take up space in the rotation and to just eat innings.
Like several of next year's projected starting pitchers, his home run rate leaves a lot to be desired. Of the key peripheral numbers, it's pretty fair to say the Theocracy considers home run rate to be the least important.
-
I hope there is still one more higher upside/established starter coming (I'd still love to see Edwin Jackson on a 3-4 year deal because I think he's going to be underpaid, and I think taking a chance on Porcello would be worthwhile). It would be nice to have three or four guys fighting for the last spot. And with Garza's and Baker's early season health in question, they probably need more than 5 legitimate starters anyway.
That could be true. There's probably a decent chance Feldman is brought on to be a swing man. The Cubs do have plenty of money to burn, so maybe they were able to tell Feldman, "We'll pay you $2-3 million more than anyone else, but you'll have to settle for a swing man role." After seeing what the likes of Casey Coleman, Justin Germano, and company have done, I'm sure Theo wants some better backup options for the rotation this time around, so we don't have to go through that embarrassment again.
I guess we'll have to see what Theo or Jed has to say about it later.
-
A Fangraphs take on Feldman:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/scott-feldman-the-poor-mans-brandon-mccarthy/
-
Love the Feldman signing. His peripherals were strong last year and he had some bad luck. He has a great chance to significantly outperform a 6 mil deal.
His peripherals aren't that good for his career, though. He's another guy who doesn't strike hitters out, and his home run rates aren't anything special either.
Yeah his peripherals were OK last season (better K's and BB's than usual), but his career year in peripherals at age 29 still resulted in a 5.09 ERA. For the rest of his career, his numbers all around are decidedly mediocre.
At least we're not bogging ourselves down in long term contracts at this point.
-
I hope there is still one more higher upside/established starter coming (I'd still love to see Edwin Jackson on a 3-4 year deal because I think he's going to be underpaid, and I think taking a chance on Porcello would be worthwhile). It would be nice to have three or four guys fighting for the last spot. And with Garza's and Baker's early season health in question, they probably need more than 5 legitimate starters anyway.
-
Ugh, I'd rather have seen us make the Marmol for Haren trade and taken our chances on Haren's health.
Next year's definitely going to be another long year.
-
Love the Feldman signing. His peripherals were strong last year and he had some bad luck. He has a great chance to significantly outperform a 6 mil deal.
-
Feldman's deal is for 1 year, $6 million with $1 million in incentives. Sounds a little pricey for a guy who has been pretty mediocre in his career. And it probably also means they see him as a starter, not a swing guy.
-
Also:
Buster Olney @Buster_ESPN
Club evaluators were aware of Jeff Keppinger's leg injury, and don't consider it serious enough to deter them. Teams bidding: TB, AZ, CHC.
-
Olney:
@Buster_ESPN
Scott Feldman is on the verge of signing a one-year deal with the Chicago Cubs
Hopefully, it's just a depth signing and he'll be more of a swingman.
-
This would have fit in nicely in that Seinfeld episode on opposites.
-
You mean Rob Deer as a hitting coach was not a joke?
Wow.
He holds the dubious honor of having the lowest official batting average while still qualifying for the batting title when he batted .179 in 1991. He is the only player since 1910 to have a batting average less than .220 in at least 400 at-bats in at least four seasons.
Deer held the American League record for strikeouts in a season (186 strikeouts in 1987) until being passed by Jack Cust in 2008, and had at least 140 strikeouts on seven occasions. Deer averaged a strikeout every 2.75 at-bats.
But easy as it is to poke fun at the signing, or to attribute it to the buddy network, there probably was something far more important at play.
Deer is the owner/developer of the Viz-u-bat system.
http://viz-u-battingsystems.com/AboutUs.html
Rob’s Major League experience will
help you become a better hitter.
Former San Diego Padre Rob Deer started Viz-U-Batting Systems in 2006 when he first started taping a ball to a bat to help him visualize where he needed to connect with the ball. Over the years he’s been perfecting his basic concept while he was the hitting coach for the Padres.
"I was a notorious free swinger when I played. I knew what I was doing wrong, but I never had a tool that could help me focus and prepare for the game mentally as well as physically."
"When I came on board as the hitting coordinator for a major league franchise, I wanted to help the players do things I was not able to do as a hitter. When I first started taping the ball onto the end of a bat, they were a little confused...but after just a few swings, they quickly realized the impact that pre-visualization could have on your game."
After the initial success of the Viz-U-Bat, Rob and a business partner developed other tools to help hitters visualize the strike zone and the proper way to hit within it.
From Major Leaguers to Little Leaguers, Rob’s unique tools are getting
positive, even dramatic results for hitters at every level.
The approach has been endorsed by George Brett, Robin Yount and Tony Gwynn (though the company website mis-spells Gwynn's last name....).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxdE0ZWBOIU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxdE0ZWBOIU)
-
so you didn't hear it from me. Davep emailed that to me.
Ha. Everyone knows that I don't know new fangeled stuff like Email or television.
-
Deer knew how to work the count. He walked a ton. He's definitely a guy who knows something about grinding out at bats, which is probably what appeals to the front office.
He wasn't a great hitter, but he was pretty productive. And he was one of the few to be able to succeed long term with a Brett Jackson-like (lack of) ability to make contact, for whatever that's worth.
-
Don't forget Bosio
-
It would be mean to suggest that the old boy network still runs fine, even in the Theocracy, in that Sveum and Deer were teammates and buddies on the Brewers, so you didn't hear it from me. Davep emailed that to me.
-
And this from the Trib (emphasis, mine):
Deer has spent most of the last decade working as a roving hitting instructor for the Padres, working with Anthony Rizzo in 2011. He was considered a boom-or-bust guy as a hitter, setting an American League record with 196 strikeouts in 1987 (it stood until 2008). He had 140-plus strikeouts in seven seasons but walked often enough to raise his career batting average by 102 points. He finished with a slash line of .220/.324/.442 over 11 seasons.
-
Excerpt from Bruce Miles' blog:
In doing my daily research today, I came across a link on Twitter, with the hat-tip going to The Hardball Times. THT linked to a Q.-and-A. with Deer done in October 2006 by onmilwaukee.com and former Brewers beat writer Drew Olson. In the interview, Olson asks Deer about a guy striking out so many times and having such a low batting average being a hitting instructor.
“I answer that a lot,” responded Deer, who was minor-league hitting coordinator for the Padres at the time. “I don't teach the way I hit. I understand how to hit .300. I know what it takes. We tell the guys to be selectively aggressive. We want that to be their approach. We tell them 'Be patiently aggressive.' That's our motto. What does it mean? If you get a good pitch to hit and you take it, that's your fault. We don't ever want to take aggressiveness away. But, we don't want to swing at bat pitches, either. I'll be the first to admit I don't want them to hit like I did."
-
Lol
-
And Steve Blass will be the new assistant pitching coach.
-
Seems like Rob Deer has been the assistant hitting coach for a lot longer than that.
-
Is that a joke?
-
Rob Deer will be the Cubs assistant hitting coach in 2013.
-
Over/under on 2013 Cubs losses - 120.
-
LaHair signs with the SoftBank Hawks for $4 million/2 years, Cubs receive $950K for his rights. Not a bad consolation prize, because he would never have earned anything near $4 million in career pay in MLB.
I've also seen a report that he received a $700,000 signing bonus and has the right to opt out after 2013 (not that he'd want to).
-
The thing with LaPorta is that he's had over 1,000 plate appearances and only has a .694 career OPS to show for it. His last full season in Triple-A wasn't that special either. Maybe he's worth a flier, but I wouldn't have a lot of high hopes for it panning out.
Nate Schierholtz is another guy like that who I have a little bit of mild interest in.
-
http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/blog/mlb-rumors/21075144/indians-outright-matt-laporta-to-triple-a
Is this guy worth taking a look at? I know he has never met expectations but he may provide some depth since our 40 man is pretty devoid of talent.
-
LaHair signs with the SoftBank Hawks for $4 million/2 years, Cubs receive $950K for his rights. Not a bad consolation prize, because he would never have earned anything near $4 million in career pay in MLB.
-
Only jes looks at a guy like Victorino and talks about OPS+
No positional adjustment. No defensive value. No measure of his speed.
-
Nobody's taking another look at Jackson.
-
Perhaps.
And it wouldn't surprise me if the Cubs did sign him in that hope, but Victorino has had only one really good season in his career -- 2011 with an OPS+ of 130. Other than that he has never had an OPS+ above 110, and from 2008-2010 had seasons of 107, 110, 101, then last year was at 91.
I doubt he will reach league average for 2013, but signing him would not exactly block anyone, and if he did start the season well he could bring a nice return about the time the Cubs were ready to take another look at Jackson.
-
I'm going to make a prediction--I think Shane Victorino will end up as a Cub on a 1-2 year deal. I think it'll be a smart move and have an outcome similar to the Maholm signing last year. I just think he has the appearance of a guy who is going to fall through the cracks and be a nice value signing.
-
LaHair is close to a deal with the SoftBank Hawks.
-
#Cubs select contracts of 4 to add to 40-man roster: RHP Trey McNutt, IF Christian Villanueva, IF Logan Watkins & RHP Robert Whitenack
None of these was sure things, so each is interesting. Villanueva is probably the least surprising. And given that they'll want to protect as many as they can, no surprise that on a roster that has little more than 20 guys worth protecting, some of the guys added to the back-end are probably as marginal as guys they will end up replacing.
Whitenack is the biggest surprise. For an A-ball guy coming off surgery and having been really ineffective this year with an 80's fastball, he wouldn't have seemed to be a compelling Rule 5 pickup. But I imagine that coming off of surgery, he's the most unpredictable. If his velocity jumps back to what it had been the spring before his elbow blew, he might be way better in 2013 than he was in 2012.
INteresting that Watkins made it. He's a guy who produced well, and has drawn board interest, but the enthusiasm from scouts outside the organization has been pretty restrained, and I haven't heard a bunch of buzz from within the org either. Having him on the roster could be convenient, though. A utility guy who can yo-yo back-and-forth to be the 25th man is a convenience for Sveum. I know McNutt has a name from a couple years ago, and only two years ago he was a BA top-100 prospect. I wonder if he still has any real potential left? ERA was 4.50 second half, so it's not like he'd really turned things around. Although in relief his ERA was 3.86, so maybe a little progress there. Scouting is the game with pitchers, obviously. But stats-wise, he seems like kind of a lose-lose-lose statistical profile. High HR/low K/high walks is not your usual profile for pitching success. And I don't think he's been reported to throw especially hard these last couple of seasons, either. Maybe another offseason of the right drills, and some good coaching, and we could see a new guy? Why not hope, I guess.
-
I don't think Campana has much of a future at the major league level, but I wouldn't take him off the roster. He does have one elite tool which could be useful in the right situation. And if he is forced to start for a while and has a lucky-good 250 PA or so, maybe you can trick some other GM into believing he's a young Juan Pierre.
I like Campana, and wouldn't mind seeing him start regularly, but tricking some other GM into believing he's a young Juan Pierre would presumably include hiding all calendars -- the guy turns 27 in May. While that may be young for Juan Pierre, it is no longer young in terms of his development as a player.
-
The Cubs still need (at least) an OF and a SP, and may want room for a Rule 5 pick as well.
Need them for what?
For the 2013 stretch run?
While many of us may want a 2013 team which is enjoyable to watch not just because they are approach the game better, but also because they are willing a lot of games, I suspect the Theocracy is still primarily concerned with the long term and will manage the 40 man roster with that in mind, and not in such a way as to get another couple of wins in 2013.
To the extent that the 2013 team on the field can be improved while simultaneously doing as much as possible to improve the team's long term prospects, great, but if that happens I suspect it will primarily be coincidental as opposed to the result of design.
-
The deadline to tender contracts to arbitration eligible players is midnight on November 30. I would guess that the Cubs will strongly push to figure out third base before then so they can non-tender Stewart. Ideally, they can find a deal for a third baseman that involves trading 1-2 rostered players other than Stewart...so between the trade and non-tendering Stewart, the Cubs would be able to open 1-2 40 man spots.
Outside of Garza, Samardzija, and Wood, I don't think the Cubs have much to lose by sending any pitcher who started a game for them last year through waivers. I guess you'd like to keep at least one of Coleman, Rusin, and Raley just to have in an emergency...but dropping Coleman and one of the two lefties (preferably Rusin) wouldn't hurt.
I don't think Campana has much of a future at the major league level, but I wouldn't take him off the roster. He does have one elite tool which could be useful in the right situation. And if he is forced to start for a while and has a lucky-good 250 PA or so, maybe you can trick some other GM into believing he's a young Juan Pierre.
-
Jaye Chapman is pretty replaceable as well. Chris Rusin might be another guy.
I'd still imagine Gerardo Concepcion wouldn't have much of a problem making it through waivers. I think we still owe him $2-3 million, but we may not be ready to risk losing a guy we've made a $6 million investment in yet. We spent a 40 man roster spot on Lendy Castillo all year last year, but he could conceivably make it through or be another candidate to go.
-
40-man roster is at 40.
The Cubs still need (at least) an OF and a SP, and may want room for a Rule 5 pick as well. I nominate Coleman, Campana and Putnam, but they might put Clevenger through waivers instead. They could also dump Stewart, but they'd need another infielder if they did that, so it wouldn't really free up a roster spot.
-
40-man roster is at 40.
-
Jim Callis from September 19 . . .
Raul (Tucson, Az): Barret Loux was projected to be a sandwich pick or 2nd round when he was coming out of college but the Diamondbacks picked him at 6th overall, which was too high for him. But now that he's had a good season in AA, was the original projection too conservative?
Jim Callis: No, I think our projection (sandwich round) still holds up. He has more solid than plus stuff and there are concerns about his medical history. He has a ceiling as No. 3 starter and more realistically would be a No. 4.
-
I wonder if Brigham was damaged goods, and this is really just a redo of the Soto deal.
Outside of Vizcaino, Loux is probably easily the Cubs' best pitching prospect at the upper levels. Of course, you probably could've said the same thing about Brigham.
I forgot he was part of the Soto deal and not the Dempster deal. I'm really not sure Brigham was all that promising. Seemed like all of the scouting reports at the time of the deal said his fastball was already starting to slip.
Granted Loux sounds like he has his own set of question marks, but he does sound more interesting to me. Of course, we're talking about our return for a washed up Geo Soto, so anything that's an improvement over a rusty bucket of batting practice balls has to be considered a good return.
-
So essentially, this is damaged goods for damaged goods, and the Cubs must think Loux has a slightly better chance of overcoming his damage.
-
Miles said it was prearranged if Brigham got hurt.
Thanks. That makes a lot more sense.
-
I wonder if Brigham was damaged goods, and this is really just a redo of the Soto deal.
Outside of Vizcaino, Loux is probably easily the Cubs' best pitching prospect at the upper levels. Of course, you probably could've said the same thing about Brigham.
-
That is an oddball kind of trade. I wonder why we didn't just take Loux in the Dempster trade in the first place.
Also, I know Whitenack making the 40 man isn't a shocking development, but I thought the need to roster him was kind of overstated around here. Nice to see that he apparently showed enough this year where Theo and company thought he was worth protecting.
-
Miles said it was prearranged if Brigham got hurt.
-
Loux does have the serious long-term arm concerns, and his stuff is considered average - high-80s-low90s fastball, average curve, slider and change. Most of the scouting reports I've seen had him at 88-92 this year, despite the 14-1 record. He couldn't crack Texas' top 20 but that's a deep system - for us, he's probably in the mid-teens.
-
The trade for Loux is a little surprising. I know there were health concerns when he was drafted, but he's been healthy since he signed with the Rangers. And pretty effective too. I know Brigham is kind of an under-the-radar back end starting prospect, but he was hurt at the end of the year. Seems like the Cubs came out better with Loux.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=loux--001bar
-
#Cubs select contracts of 4 to add to 40-man roster: RHP Trey McNutt, IF Christian Villanueva, IF Logan Watkins & RHP Robert Whitenack
Bryan LaHair designated for assignment. #Cubs say they are pursuing opportunity for him in Japan.
Also, RHP Carlos Gutierrez cleared waivers & assigned to Minor Leagues. #Cubs
That's all from Muskat.
-
#Cubs acquire RHP Barret Loux and a player to be named from #Rangers for RHP Jake Brigham
-
Lots of teams have made their pre-Rule 5 draft additions to their rosters, but no word from the Cubs yet.
It's not entirely out of the question that the Cubs won't add anyone.
-
Lots of teams have made their pre-Rule 5 draft additions to their rosters, but no word from the Cubs yet.
Probably trying to figure out a last minute trade so they don't have to DFA anyone they want to keep.
-
davep, I thought you might like this, as well as agree with it. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/why-im-not-a-fan-of-losing-on-purpose/
Thanks, Jes. I agree with some of it, but probably for a different reason.
Every business has to balance current success with future success. You might introduce new products this year even though they will lose money for years, with the hope that they will bring in even more money in the future. At the same time, you can't bring in so many current losing products that you lose market credibility.
-
Lots of teams have made their pre-Rule 5 draft additions to their rosters, but no word from the Cubs yet.
-
davep, I thought you might like this, as well as agree with it. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/why-im-not-a-fan-of-losing-on-purpose/
-
Over the last three years, Camp has compiled a 1.3 fWAR. Over the past three years, Jeremy Affeldt has compiled an identical 1.3 WAR. Camp signed for 1 year, $1.35 million; Affeldt signed for 3 years, $18.5 million. Nice job, Cubs front office.
Affeldt is a lefty who does well against both LH and RH hitters (career OPS allowed -- .742 against RH hitters and .701 against LH; Camp a righty, with splits showing you might not want to leave him in for a full inning if a lefty is hitting -- .724/.874.
Affeldt turned 33 in June; Camp turned 37 last week.
Affeldt has had an ERA+ of 130 of better in 5 of the last 6 years, including 2 of the last three, his ERA+ in 2012 about the same as 4 of the last 6 years, and with the one down year he had an oblique strain. Camp has only had one season with an ERA+ as high as 130, and in 3 of the last 5 seasons, including both of the last two he has had an ERA+ between 100 and 110.
In short, Affeldt is an apple, and Camp is an orange.
Their differences may not warrant as much difference as is seen in what they signed for, but the two guys are not close to being the same relief pitchers.
-
Over the last three years, Camp has compiled a 1.3 fWAR. Over the past three years, Jeremy Affeldt has compiled an identical 1.3 WAR. Camp signed for 1 year, $1.35 million; Affeldt signed for 3 years, $18.5 million. Nice job, Cubs front office.
-
Shawn Camp signed, 1 year $1.35 million with $200K in performance bonuses.
-
The deadline for setting rosters in advance of the Rule 5 draft is tomorrow. So, if a young player(s) for young player(s) swap is going to happen, you'd think today or tomorrow would be a good time for it.
-
I think he mentioned Chisenhall from the Indians.
-
I want Hrabowski!
-
I like Deshaies...he's a good addition to the list...
-
Take this with a huge grain of salt...but I've read on a couple other boards this morning that Bruce Levine apparently said on the radio yesterday that he thinks there is going to be a young players for young players trade involving the Cubs sometime soon. Of course, these posts on other boards gave no context (did he say this is a concrete rumor he's heard, or is it just his speculation?), and Levine has been known to be unreliable with rumors in the past anyway. But there's nothing else going on with the Cubs right now, so I thought I'd pass it along.
-
And Patrick Mooney says Plesac has removed his name from consideration.
http://www.csnchicago.com/baseball-chicago-cubs/cubs-talk/Plesac-Glanville-out-Deshaies-in-the-mix?blockID=803301&feedID=661&awid=5349407479528081165-914
-
CSN has a report saying that Glanville will not be Brenly's replacement, but that Jim Deshaies could be.
http://www.csnchicago.com/baseball-chicago-cubs/cubs-talk/Glanville-out-Deshaies-in-the-mix-for-Cu?blockID=803301&feedID=10336 (http://www.csnchicago.com/baseball-chicago-cubs/cubs-talk/Glanville-out-Deshaies-in-the-mix-for-Cu?blockID=803301&feedID=10336)
-
The Dodgers are probably willing to pay him more to model swimsuits than the Cubs could justify paying him to close their rare wins next year.
-
The Cubs are reportedly interested in Japanese reliever Kyuji Fujikawa. Fujikawa visited with the Cubs and Diamondbacks last week, and has upcoming visits with the Angels and Dodgers. Because he's eligible for free agency, he doesn't have to go through the posting process. The 32-year-old has been scouted by as many as six MLB teams, including the Rangers and Red Sox. In Chicago, Fujikawa would presumably replace Carlos Marmol.
-
Houston leaving takes away one bandbox...
-
I'd be surprised if Porcello's HR rate didn't drop a little moving to the NL.
Yes, you'd think that all else equal a guy like Porcello should allow 2 or 3 fewer HR's when coming over. He's typically allowed about 18 HR's per season, which averages to 2 HR's per each spot in the AL lineup. Replace a DH with a pitcher, and with only 8 instead of 9 hitters in a lineup that should drop to 16. Perhaps the drop should be a hair more, since DH's always have some power, whereas the average HR's output of regular hitters is skewed/depressed a bit by the Barneys of the game. So I'd think a reduction of around 10-15% in HR allowance would seem likely.
That said, I think the perception of impact is sometimes inflated a bit. I think sometimes there is the perception that all the AL parks are HR-launching pads, Baltimore and Texas and Boston and Yankees, and that AL lineups are packed with sluggers. But that is certainly NOT the case in the AL central. Detroit, where Porcello pitches half his games, has been notorious as an anti-HR field. They play a bunch of games against Minnesota, which has an extreme anti-HR field (by reputation, at least), and has an absolutely powerless lineup. Kansas City is not a power field either. In Porcello's division, there are just a whole bunch of low-HR stadiums and power-deficient lineups.
So I'd guess that if Porcello came to the Cubs, removal of the DH should take 2 or 3 away. But that Wrigley Field and the NL Central would probably offset some or all of that improvement.
-
DaveP, Cynofski's later was on Harrison or Van Buren west of the main post office. I am too young to remember the Maxwell Street location, but as a teenager my dad introduced me to the west loop locale, and my friends and I would go there to buy shirts (by then they had actually organized them roughly by size, in cardboard bins....I could get brooks brothers dress shirts for something like $1 during the height of the 80s preppy thing).
Anyhow, yes to Porcello.
-
I just thought they were words preceding hasenpfeffer incorporated.
-
That makes sense. I'm always spilling soup on myself.
-
I have been called both a shlamazel and a shlemiel, and I'm still not sure what the difference is.
The shlemiel is the one who spills the soup; the shlemazel is the one he spills it on.
-
Davep left out the part where the shopkeeper cursed Dave's mother to have a totally worthless son. Those Jewish Dutch curses are always right on.
Leave my brother alone.
-
I'd be surprised if Porcello's HR rate didn't drop a little moving to the NL.
-
Davep left out the part where the shopkeeper cursed Dave's mother to have a totally worthless son. Those Jewish Dutch curses are always right on.
-
I have been called both a shlamazel and a shlemiel, and I'm still not sure what the difference is.
-
I don't understand a word of Dutch. And I've pretty well avoided learning Yiddish despite hearing a lot of it from my parents and in-laws.
-
On Halsted, just north of Maxwell Street there was a second floor store called Cynofski's. They sold second hand clothing, and they had the contract to sell the clothing that came of the dummies at Marshall Fields and the other downtown stores. They were wadded up in a bin, and looked like they went through the war, and you could have your pick for 50 cents. Their guarantee was that every item would clean up perfectly, and if there was a stain that wouldn't wash out, you just brought it back for a refund, no questions asked.
And the Sloppy Joe's stand east of Halsted on Maxwell was better than Jim's Original.
My mother and her sisters would shop there, and would talk to each other in Dutch so the predominately Jewish shopkeepers wouldn't understand what they were saying (the shopkeepers talked Yidish among themselves for the same reason). One day her sister was about to purchase something, and my mother said to her, "let's try across the street first. This guy looks like a crook". When the Jewish shopkeeper replied in perfect Dutch (Madam, he is even less honest than I am" my mother almost died. It hadn't occurred to her that Jewish shopkeepers could have immigrated from Holland.
She was so embarrassed, she didn't go back to Maxwell Street for a couple of months. Even today, almost 80 years later, she blushes if you can get her to tell the story.
-
P2 on the corner of Maxwell and Halsted there is now a Jamba Juice. Where once a man could get a bone-in pork chop sandwich and a grape nehi soda for Sunday breakfast to fortify his soul for buying lots and lots of tube socks, now carrot juice is available. (Jim's Original has been relocated as has the entire market -- it's now a place for remarkable Mexican food http://www.greatermidwestfoodways.com/data/files/images/events/2011/MidwestEats/MaxwellStreetMarketGuide2011-12.pdf)
-
This reminds me of the days when I used to go looking for bargains on Maxwell St.
-
I'd give up Marmol for Porcello in a heartbeat, but I'd be very surprised if the Tigers would do that deal.
-
I wouldn't give much of anything for Porcello, either. The Volstad comps are pretty accurate.
I'm sure Theo is talking FA and trade regarding lots and lots of unexceptional pitchers. So not sure how likely it is that Porcello is any more serious than Villanueva or Haren or Liriano or Jackson or who knows who else.
I assume analysis is a blend of scouting and stats. The Volstad comp is obviously striking: tall, young, low K's, better FIP than actual ERA's, ground ball-oriented but pretty high-HR anyway, and haven't shown much improvement.
If K/BB/HR are the big three fundamentals for a pitcher, Volstad appears to be poor in two of them (K and HR), and favorable in only one (BB).
But, each is individual, and some guys plateau for a while and then take a step forward. If you take shots on guys like Volstad, sooner or later one of them might work out well, even if Volstad didn't.
I wonder if Detroit is shopping him because they expect meaningful value for him? Or is it because they want to upgrade their rotation and they're going to replace him anyway, whether with a more promising prospect or a FA or via trade? Or is it just a budget thing; they've got a lot of expensive stars and paying $3-4.5 million for a consistently below-average starter just doesn't fit?
-
A couple of "Read Into It What You Will" tables.
First one here, are pitchers among the Top 25 in the league in GB% between 2011-12 and with K/9 IP rates under 6.0.
| Name | Team | GB/FB | LD% | GB% | FB% | IFFB% | HR/FB | K/9 | BB/9 | HR/9 | K/BB | ERA |
| Tim Hudson | Braves | 2.25 | 18.90% | 56.10% | 25.00% | 6.50% | 8.50% | 5.94 | 2.38 | 0.59 | 2.50 | 3.40 |
| Matt Harrison | Rangers | 1.53 | 20.20% | 48.30% | 31.50% | 11.20% | 8.90% | 5.84 | 2.62 | 0.79 | 2.23 | 3.34 |
| Rick Porcello | Tigers | 2.01 | 21.60% | 52.30% | 26.10% | 12.80% | 10.60% | 5.30 | 2.26 | 0.85 | 2.34 | 4.67 |
| Jake Westbrook | Cardinals | 2.68 | 19.30% | 58.80% | 21.90% | 8.10% | 10.80% | 5.28 | 3.14 | 0.70 | 1.68 | 4.32 |
| Derek Lowe | - - - | 2.71 | 19.10% | 59.10% | 21.80% | 5.30% | 9.70% | 5.24 | 3.30 | 0.66 | 1.59 | 5.08 |
| Kevin Correia | Pirates | 1.49 | 19.10% | 48.50% | 32.50% | 8.40% | 12.30% | 4.60 | 2.35 | 1.22 | 1.95 | 4.49 |
Hudson and Harrison both have higher K rates and lower HR rates than Porcello, so it makes sense that they'd be having more success than him. Porcello is actually second on this list in most HR/9 IP behind Correia, so that obviously isn't helping him out.
Seems like Westbrook might be a decent comp for what Porcello's ceiling could be, though. Westbrook walks a few more guys and gives up a few less homers.
Second table shows roughly the same info for just 2012.
| Name | Team | GB/FB | LD% | GB% | FB% | IFFB% | HR/FB | K/9 | BB/9 | HR/9 | K/BB | ERA |
| Ross Detwiler | Nationals | 1.55 | 16.40% | 50.80% | 32.80% | 9.60% | 9.00% | 5.75 | 2.85 | 0.82 | 2.02 | 3.40 |
| Luis Mendoza | Royals | 1.92 | 20.80% | 52.10% | 27.10% | 10.60% | 10.60% | 5.64 | 3.20 | 0.81 | 1.76 | 4.23 |
| Jake Westbrook | Cardinals | 2.77 | 20.80% | 58.10% | 21.00% | 8.30% | 10.00% | 5.46 | 2.68 | 0.62 | 2.04 | 3.97 |
| Rick Porcello | Tigers | 2.36 | 24.20% | 53.20% | 22.60% | 15.80% | 11.50% | 5.46 | 2.25 | 0.82 | 2.43 | 4.59 |
| Tim Hudson | Braves | 2.2 | 19.30% | 55.50% | 25.20% | 4.10% | 8.30% | 5.13 | 2.41 | 0.60 | 2.13 | 3.62 |
| Scott Diamond | Twins | 2.09 | 21.00% | 53.40% | 25.60% | 4.00% | 11.40% | 4.68 | 1.61 | 0.88 | 2.90 | 3.54 |
| Kevin Correia | Pirates | 1.76 | 19.60% | 51.20% | 29.10% | 5.40% | 12.00% | 4.68 | 2.42 | 1.05 | 1.93 | 4.21 |
| Clayton Richard | Padres | 1.93 | 18.40% | 53.80% | 27.80% | 5.80% | 15.00% | 4.40 | 1.73 | 1.28 | 2.55 | 3.99 |
| Henderson Alvarez | Blue Jays | 2.34 | 18.70% | 57.00% | 24.30% | 8.10% | 18.10% | 3.80 | 2.59 | 1.39 | 1.46 | 4.85 |
Just again, it seems like Westbrook is your best case scenario for what Porcello could become. And obviously we'd all be pretty happy with a pitcher as effective as Westbrook in the rotation, so maybe Porcello's worth more of a flier than I gave him credit for last night.
The one thing that stands out as separating Porcello in that second table from Westbrook or Hudson is HR rate. Porcello is a 0.8 while Westbrook and Hudson are at 0.6. Not sure if that's going to change much going from Comerica to Wrigley either.