Morosi: Cubs pursuing closer Carlos Estevez

I would generally lean against Estevez and prefer one of the old guys with their far superior peripherals.  That said, he does have pretty high octane stuff, and aside from 2 months with the Phillies has yet to spend any time in an org that knows what it's doing on the pitching dev front.  There's probably untapped upside here that doesn't exist with most alternatives, though I doubt it's enough to make a multi-year deal worth it.

6 minutes ago, Bertz said:

I would generally lean against Estevez and prefer one of the old guys with their far superior peripherals.  That said, he does have pretty high octane stuff, and aside from 2 months with the Phillies has yet to spend any time in an org that knows what it's doing on the pitching dev front.  There's probably untapped upside here that doesn't exist with most alternatives, though I doubt it's enough to make a multi-year deal worth it.

All that said, I would take him. My first choice would be Yates. Probably Robertson followed by Estevez. I think Finnegan and Jansen would be after that. Just my preference. 

2 hours ago, TomtheBombadil said:

I do not enjoy this creep where they’re alluva sudden shopping for The Closer now rather than the more general need for high leveragez/impact pitching 

I think this is largely people using the terms interchangeably, it's not like there's a reliever of similar caliber with no closing experience waiting to be signed that is being ignored.  That said, given the rest of the pen has several players who can easily be leverage/impact guys but have limited experience closing games, I think ensuring your leverage RP addition has some experience in that realm is worthwhile.

7 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

I think this is largely people using the terms interchangeably, it's not like there's a reliever of similar caliber with no closing experience waiting to be signed that is being ignored.  That said, given the rest of the pen has several players who can easily be leverage/impact guys but have limited experience closing games, I think ensuring your leverage RP addition has some experience in that realm is worthwhile.

I think there is Kahnle and Farmer if the Cubs aren’t specifically looking for a closer. 

Don't worry the Dodgers will sign him next week.  I'm honestly surprised they didn't sign Soto and trade for Tucker.  WTF?

12 minutes ago, TomtheBombadil said:

I agree, but also was not under the impression the assumption was one (The de facto Closer) pickup until the Scott story evolved into Scott the closer seemingly overnight. Heck, it almost feels like it takes more effort to bring in a RP (esp FA) without “closer” experience this offseason and only 20 mins ago the Cubs went from bullpen (implying multiple) to specifically closer with the implication of finding One Man (something I’ve railed against esp post-pandemic) 

I’m over here pounding for at least a couple closers! 

I like going for best available arm and moving Hodge et al down a rung.

Estevez last year had career lows in BABIP, K/9, BB/9, HR/9, and HR/FB.  His ERA was over a run and a half lower than his xFIP.  He has every red flag of significant regression next year.  He projects to a 4.00 ERA on FG.

He seems like an average to maybe above average reliever.  Not really sure why he's even considered a closer other than having some saves on some bad teams.

I can see the Cubs seeing some upside here and he can bolster a pen but he's not a guy you'd sign as your closer if your goal is to win the division and make a deep playoff run.  Needing to trade a good prospect at the deadline for 2 months of a legit closer if the Cubs are contending is a stupid position to put yourself in, stop trying to be cute and go get one now.

I feel similar with Finnegan.  I'm fine with either if they sign one plus a legit closer like Robertson/Yates.

6 minutes ago, Stratos said:

Estevez last year had career lows in BABIP, K/9, BB/9, HR/9, and HR/FB.  His ERA was over a run and a half lower than his xFIP.  He has every red flag of significant regression next year.  He projects to a 4.00 ERA on FG.

He seems like an average to maybe above average reliever.  Not really sure why he's even considered a closer other than having some saves on some bad teams.

I can see the Cubs seeing some upside here and he can bolster a pen but he's not a guy you'd sign as your closer if your goal is to win the division and make a deep playoff run.  Needing to trade a good prospect at the deadline for 2 months of a legit closer if the Cubs are contending is a stupid position to put yourself in, stop trying to be cute and go get one now.

I feel similar with Finnegan.  I'm fine with either if they sign one plus a legit closer like Robertson/Yates.

Over the last four years Estevez has a 3.58 ERA, 3.83 FIP, and 4.29 xFIP.  I'm too lazy to do the math on his xERA right now, but eyeballing it seems to be in line with his FIP.

I also tend to look at xFIP first and proceed from there, but Estevez seems pretty likely to have something to him to mitigate his HR/FB numbers.  He's not my first choice but he'd likely be a quality closer.  The Phillies are *very* smart with pitchers and they made him their big deadline move last summer.

2 minutes ago, Stratos said:

Estevez last year had career lows in BABIP, K/9, BB/9, HR/9, and HR/FB.  His ERA was over a run and a half lower than his xFIP.  He has every red flag of significant regression next year.  He projects to a 4.00 ERA on FG.

He seems like an average to maybe above average reliever.  Not really sure why he's even considered a closer other than having some saves on some bad teams.

Gotta be careful about using per 9 stats when part of your point is that he had a particularly good BABIP season.  That means there's simply fewer PA in general, his K% was middle of the road for his career, and his HR/FB is impacted by playing most of his career in Coors.  Since leaving Colorado he has 2 seasons and over 115 innings with an ERA far under his xFIP, given his stuff it's very possible that assuming a league average HR rate(like xFIP is doing) is not a safe assumption.  ZiPS projects him for a 3.76 ERA and 3.73 FIP.

3 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

 

Gotta be careful about using per 9 stats when part of your point is that he had a particularly good BABIP season.  That means there's simply fewer PA in general, his K% was middle of the road for his career, and his HR/FB is impacted by playing most of his career in Coors.  Since leaving Colorado he has 2 seasons and over 115 innings with an ERA far under his xFIP, given his stuff it's very possible that assuming a league average HR rate(like xFIP is doing) is not a safe assumption.  ZiPS projects him for a 3.76 ERA and 3.73 FIP.

Which would be quite disappointing from your closer

29 minutes ago, Stratos said:

Estevez last year had career lows in BABIP, K/9, BB/9, HR/9, and HR/FB.  His ERA was over a run and a half lower than his xFIP.  He has every red flag of significant regression next year.  He projects to a 4.00 ERA on FG.

He seems like an average to maybe above average reliever.  Not really sure why he's even considered a closer other than having some saves on some bad teams.

I can see the Cubs seeing some upside here and he can bolster a pen but he's not a guy you'd sign as your closer if your goal is to win the division and make a deep playoff run.  Needing to trade a good prospect at the deadline for 2 months of a legit closer if the Cubs are contending is a stupid position to put yourself in, stop trying to be cute and go get one now.

I feel similar with Finnegan.  I'm fine with either if they sign one plus a legit closer like Robertson/Yates.

With the guys who are left I have to say no matter who they do end up getting, as soon as the pen has a bad week the complaining will begin. And it is going to happen. It happens to every team at some point. Even the Guardians and Brewers sucked in the playoffs. It is just the easiest thing to bitch about. If it is Robertson, Yates or Jansen it will be Cubs should have known they were too old. You already have your red flags ready if it is Estevez. If it is Finnegan he will also be easy to criticize. Hell, the Nationals let him walk. TBH even if they got Scott, if he struggled early posters would be talking about having to have him for 4 years. The surest thing in baseball is to predict fans will complain about their teams bullpen. They are going to get someone. We should be happy they are at least going to try to fix the back end. I just don’t want them to take the last man standing. Make a decision on who they want and sign him, period. And they are not signing two. 
Nantes with you, however. I want either Yates or Robertson if I am picking one. But they come with issues too. 

24 minutes ago, Tryptamine said:

Which would be quite disappointing from your closer

Also half a run worse than his post-Colorado totals, the point is that a better projection system sees a clear difference. And to Bertz's point he's spent 95% of his career in organizations with stone age pitching development so you'd hope to have a little more you can unlock from him.  Not my top target, but I don't see much of a case for the idea that he's on the precipice of severe regression.

25 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

Also half a run worse than his post-Colorado totals, the point is that a better projection system sees a clear difference. And to Bertz's point he's spent 95% of his career in organizations with stone age pitching development so you'd hope to have a little more you can unlock from him.  Not my top target, but I don't see much of a case for the idea that he's on the precipice of severe regression.

Counterpoint, can we just pay a guy who is actually just good and they don't have to develop?

11 minutes ago, Tryptamine said:

Counterpoint, can we just pay a guy who is actually just good and they don't have to develop?

Who? Who are they to sign where the fan base will be happy? They tried for Scott. He chose the Dodgers. If they sign Yates or Robertson do you really think people will not complain about them when they blow a save? 

16 minutes ago, Tryptamine said:

Counterpoint, can we just pay a guy who is actually just good and they don't have to develop?

We are talking about relievers, so no.  Or in a best case scenario you can do that for 1-2 years on a 4-5 year deal(and only 1-2 guys per offseason) and play roulette that they're useless beyond that.

12 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

We are talking about relievers, so no.  Or in a best case scenario you can do that for 1-2 years on a 4-5 year deal(and only 1-2 guys per offseason) and play roulette that they're useless beyond that.

But you could do that for Robertson. Get a better reliever and on a shorter deal.

4 minutes ago, Tryptamine said:

But you could do that for Robertson. Get a better reliever and on a shorter deal.

Robertson's ZiPS ERA is the same as Estevez.  I know you're a big Robertson fan(I don't hate him myself), but pointing to his 40 year old season as a money-in-the-bank elite reliever option isn't reality.

Yates and Robertson please. Stop horsefeathers around. Estevez is meh.

30 minutes ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

Yates and Robertson please. Stop horsefeathers around. Estevez is meh.

And? I think it is an “or” not an and. And I agree with you I want one of them. They are not going to sign 2 pen arms over $10M each, IMO. It would be nice, but I don’t see it. 

3 hours ago, Bertz said:

Over the last four years Estevez has a 3.58 ERA, 3.83 FIP, and 4.29 xFIP.  I'm too lazy to do the math on his xERA right now, but eyeballing it seems to be in line with his FIP.

I also tend to look at xFIP first and proceed from there, but Estevez seems pretty likely to have something to him to mitigate his HR/FB numbers.  He's not my first choice but he'd likely be a quality closer.  The Phillies are *very* smart with pitchers and they made him their big deadline move last summer.

Well 3.83 FIP, and 4.29 xFIP is average territory for a reliever.  He's not a soft-contact guy or a groundball guy so I just don't get it I guess.  I don't think the Phillies added him to close did they?

His FIP the last 2 season (outside Colorado) is around 3.60, the xFIP being around 4.35 (not doing the math either lol).  I just don't see a dominant pitcher, I see someone they can work with to potentially create one, which IMO isn't what you want for a closer because it just might not happen.

On the other hand, it would be a signing with upside rather than one with downside risk like the older guys Yates etc

2 hours ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

We are talking about relievers, so no.  Or in a best case scenario you can do that for 1-2 years on a 4-5 year deal(and only 1-2 guys per offseason) and play roulette that they're useless beyond that.

Robertson has been about as consistently good as a reliever could be.  They'd just be rolling the dice on age decline, but he's showed no signs of it, in fact his velo has been at career highs.  They likely get a 1-yr deal that makes up for the age risk.

Some of the peripherals on Jansen are trending slightly in the wrong direction but there's enough swing and miss stuff still there that I wouldn't be disappointed to bring him in for a year. 

39 minutes ago, Hot Sauce said:

Some of the peripherals on Jansen are trending slightly in the wrong direction but there's enough swing and miss stuff still there that I wouldn't be disappointed to bring him in for a year. 

Welcome to NSBB!

Just now, Brock Beauchamp said:

Welcome to NSBB!

Thank you. There are a lot of fans here more well-versed than I so just hoping I can contribute a little to the discussions. 

Estevez goes to KC, contract details pending.