Cubs name Mike Quade Manager

[Guest]

The Cubs middle relief was one of the worst in the league. Everything else on the pitching staff ranged from fine to great. If the pitching staff's problem is "what on earth are we going to do for the 6th and 7th inning", then it's not a problem.

It's a problem when they have no good options and our GM, in an attempt to save his job, puts our top prospects in there.

 

I'm pretty sure they've already quoted someone saying Cashner is in the running for a rotation spot next year.

 

The other part of the point is that you can't plan on awesome middle relievers, they're the most unpredictable performers in baseball. I guess you could have 3 awesome relievers to help, but that gets expensive. As it stands, the Cubs have 2 awesome relievers, plus a lot of farmhands that only need 1 or 2(if you don't trust Russell) to be okay. Plus Guzman potentially coming back.

You don't need to pay a lot to get serviceable guys, teams like the Padres and Cardinals do it all the time. And while relievers are unpredictable, the one stat that's a pretty good predictor of whether someone will be a bad reliever is walks. And the Cubs young pitchers, basically without exception, excel at walking people.

 

Some of them, sure. But we're talking about a group of around 10 guys here, some of them have had quite good control outside of miniscule MLB samples.

[jersey cubs fan]

What was the reason for putting him in the bullpen this year?

 

He was the best option in the organization, there was a decent chance that was what he was going to end up being eventually anyway, it got his arbitration clock started earlier and the team needed pitching help in the majors. It was not the ideal usage for the guy, but he hasn't been ruined or had his career destroyed.

 

Archer and Jay Jackson were probably better options than a lot of guys that appeared in the pen this year, would you be ok with them being there?

 

Jay Jackson more so than Archer. But Cashner's situation was very unique given his history as a reliever and very limited success as an actual starter.

 

The fact is you can't start out every pitching prospect in the rotation. You can get guys innings in the bullpen and you aren't necessarily destroying their careers.

[KingCubsFan]

What was the reason for putting him in the bullpen this year?

 

He was the best option in the organization, there was a decent chance that was what he was going to end up being eventually anyway, it got his arbitration clock started earlier and the team needed pitching help in the majors. It was not the ideal usage for the guy, but he hasn't been ruined or had his career destroyed.

 

Archer and Jay Jackson were probably better options than a lot of guys that appeared in the pen this year, would you be ok with them being there?

 

Jay Jackson more so than Archer. But Cashner's situation was very unique given his history as a reliever and very limited success as an actual starter.

 

The fact is you can't start out every pitching prospect in the rotation. You can get guys innings in the bullpen and you aren't necessarily destroying their careers.

That's correct, but as you point out, Cashner had a unique situation. He needed innings as a starter to build up his inning count since he was previously a reliever. Now, the Cubs are stuck either letting him start for only part of the season in 2011, or letting him throw 190 innings and watching him blow out his arm in 2012.

[jersey cubs fan]

That's correct, but as you point out, Cashner had a unique situation. He needed innings as a starter to build up his inning count since he was previously a reliever. Now, the Cubs are stuck either letting him start for only part of the season in 2011, or letting him throw 190 innings and watching him blow out his arm in 2012.

 

There's a middle ground to work with here. And the point that was being discussed is they have plenty of good enough arms to fill out the bullpen as well as contend in 2011. There is no reason to assume they cannot win the division next year.

[SouthSideRyan]

Cashner had limited success as a starter because he had limited experience as a starter. He improved every step of the way the further he was stretched out. Once the Cubs got him a step away from the majors and throwing 6 innings/start they cut off his development and threw him in the pen because they were panicking about the big league bullpen.

[Outshined_One]

Cashner had limited success as a starter because he had limited experience as a starter.

 

He was a relief pitcher for only one year as an amateur, which was his junior year at TCU. Prior to that, he was a starter in junior college and in high school.

[jersey cubs fan]

Cashner had limited success as a starter because he had limited experience as a starter. He improved every step of the way the further he was stretched out. Once the Cubs got him a step away from the majors and throwing 6 innings/start they cut off his development and threw him in the pen because they were panicking about the big league bullpen.

 

And he had limited experience as a starter because he had limited success as a starter.

 

The assumption people seem to be making is that he was a lock to turn into a 220 inning ace. I just don't see the point in assuming that. Yes, I'd prefer he be a 220 inning ace over a reliever. But odds are that wasn't happening. I'd prefer they have let him stay on as starter, but it's perfectly reasonable to have him be a major league reliever.

[jersey cubs fan]

Cashner had limited success as a starter because he had limited experience as a starter.

 

He was a relief pitcher for only one year as an amateur, which was his junior year at TCU. Prior to that, he was a starter in junior college and in high school.

 

And he wasn't all that great a pitcher until he became a reliever.

[SouthSideRyan]

Cashner had limited success as a starter because he had limited experience as a starter. He improved every step of the way the further he was stretched out. Once the Cubs got him a step away from the majors and throwing 6 innings/start they cut off his development and threw him in the pen because they were panicking about the big league bullpen.

 

And he had limited experience as a starter because he had limited success as a starter.

 

The assumption people seem to be making is that he was a lock to turn into a 220 inning ace. I just don't see the point in assuming that. Yes, I'd prefer he be a 220 inning ace over a reliever. But odds are that wasn't happening. I'd prefer they have let him stay on as starter, but it's perfectly reasonable to have him be a major league reliever.

 

Who's making that assumption? Odds are he doesn't become a lock-down reliever either, so why bother making that move?

[SouthSideRyan]

Cashner had limited success as a starter because he had limited experience as a starter.

 

He was a relief pitcher for only one year as an amateur, which was his junior year at TCU. Prior to that, he was a starter in junior college and in high school.

 

And he wasn't all that great a pitcher until he became a reliever.

 

And then again when he became a starter again. I don't see the point in putting much weight in Cashner's #s from 4 years ago in college when we have his recent success as a starter to go off of. Do you think there's much similiarity between the pitcher he was as a starter in JUCO and the guy he is today?

Edited October 20, 2010 by SouthSideRyan

[CubColtPacer]

Cashner had limited success as a starter because he had limited experience as a starter.

 

He was a relief pitcher for only one year as an amateur, which was his junior year at TCU. Prior to that, he was a starter in junior college and in high school.

 

And he wasn't all that great a pitcher until he became a reliever.

 

And then again when he became a starter again. I don't see the point in putting much weight in Cashner's #s from 4 years ago in college when we have his recent success as a starter to go off of.

 

Plus he gained velocity as a reliever and when he became a starter again he still had increased velocity. It's no fluke that he had different results as a starter in the minors than in junior college because he had vastly different stuff.

[jersey cubs fan]

Cashner had limited success as a starter because he had limited experience as a starter.

 

He was a relief pitcher for only one year as an amateur, which was his junior year at TCU. Prior to that, he was a starter in junior college and in high school.

 

And he wasn't all that great a pitcher until he became a reliever.

 

And then again when he became a starter again. I don't see the point in putting much weight in Cashner's #s from 4 years ago in college when we have his recent success as a starter to go off of.

 

Success in limited innings.

[SouthSideRyan]

Cashner had limited success as a starter because he had limited experience as a starter.

 

He was a relief pitcher for only one year as an amateur, which was his junior year at TCU. Prior to that, he was a starter in junior college and in high school.

 

And he wasn't all that great a pitcher until he became a reliever.

 

And then again when he became a starter again. I don't see the point in putting much weight in Cashner's #s from 4 years ago in college when we have his recent success as a starter to go off of.

 

Success in limited innings.

 

So you agree they should've got him more innings as a starter

[jersey cubs fan]

Who's making that assumption? Odds are he doesn't become a lock-down reliever either, so why bother making that move?

 

Because you need help in the bullpen and don't want to trade for other people's junk or spend big money on other people's junk. And you are getting big league value out of him.

 

 

You can't wait for a spot in the rotation to open for all of these guys, you can't start them all in the rotation, and you have to field a bullpen.

[SouthSideRyan]

Why was there a rush to get big league value out of him? He wasn't close to being out of options. If he falls apart after his "limited success" in the rotation, then you can move him to the pen.

 

Wouldn't it make sense to not move one of your lesser starting prospects to the pen rather than your best?

[17 Seconds]

Using pitchers you already control when you have a decent amount of pitching talent in your farm system is plenty creative enough for me, especially given the current financial situation.

That sure worked out well last year. Cashner's already in there due to necessity, and his career is probably ruined because of it. Can't wait to see Jay Jackson and Chris Archer warming up in the 6th and 7th next year.

 

I'd hardly say a career is ruined by going to the bullpen. Maybe he will never be a 220 inning $20m ace, but there odds weren't all that great of it happening in the first place. You can have a great career in the bullpen, whether you stay there forever or move out of it eventually.

 

so you have to be a 20 million dollar ace for it to be worth not going to the bullpen?

 

even if cashner turns into a solid 2 or 3, that's better than a reliever.

[jersey cubs fan]

Why was there a rush to get big league value out of him? He wasn't close to being out of options. If he falls apart after his "limited success" in the rotation, then you can move him to the pen.

 

Wouldn't it make sense to not move one of your lesser starting prospects to the pen rather than your best?

 

Archer hasn't moved. And if you want help in the bullpen I'm not sure how going for your lesser arms is supposed to help.

[abuck1220]

go get some guys for cheap with real talent.

 

oh is that all?

[SouthSideRyan]

Why was there a rush to get big league value out of him? He wasn't close to being out of options. If he falls apart after his "limited success" in the rotation, then you can move him to the pen.

 

Wouldn't it make sense to not move one of your lesser starting prospects to the pen rather than your best?

 

Archer hasn't moved. And if you want help in the bullpen I'm not sure how going for your lesser arms is supposed to help.

 

Archer wasn't close to Cashner (or even Jackson)'s level when the move was made.

Edited October 20, 2010 by SouthSideRyan

[Clem Fandango]

No point in spending big money on a manager in order to manage a team that probably won't be able to contend next season.

 

I know this is popular sentiment but there is really no reason this team can't contend for the division in 2011.

 

That, and I don't understand why he says the Cubs won't contend but also that he wants them to go out and sign Dunn.

 

I should've phrased that better. The point I was trying to convey was that if they go out and get a big name manager like Girardi or Torre they might overspend on a manager which might cause them to be out of the running for a free agent that might be able to turn the team into a contender, like Adam Dunn, since it seems they won't be huge spenders this offseason. If they were to get one of those managers, they might not be able to sign a difference making FA in the offseason, and thus, they would essentially be spending a lot of money on a manager to manage a team that probably didn't do much to improve in the offseason, partially because they spent a two or three extra million on a manager they should've spent elsewhere, and as a result they probably wouldn't contend so it would be money wasted.

 

Now, I'm still not sold on them being strong contenders, even with Dunn on the team if the cards were to fall that way. I would want Dunn so we could lock him up for 2012. Personally, I wouldn't mind a rebuilding type year that would see guys like Cashner and Jay Jackson getting, at the very least, spot starts in the rotation to prepare them for what I would assume will be an exciting 2012 since a lot of contracts might be coming of the books then, freeing up some space to play in the FA market that offseason. I see Kosuke and Silva are FA after 2011, freeing up nearly $20m, and Aramis has a $2m buyout that would save us another $14 million. Grabow and his ridiculous contract will be gone, too. Also some arbitration eligible guys might be tradeable at that point and could bring in a nice haul if we don't want to overpay in arby (Marmol, Soto, Gorzelanny, etc)

 

I don't know, I'm just not excited for next year's team at this point in time, I only see the Cubs able to go out and sign one big impact player. I just don't think they'll bust out the pocketbooks for a pitcher as well, and I think they need an impact 1B bat and an impact pitcher if they really want to set themselves up for the playoffs. Right now I don't see it. I don't think they'll be abysmal, but I don't think they'll be a team to look out for either.

[KingCubsFan]

go get some guys for cheap with real talent.

 

oh is that all?

Yep. Other teams have figured it out, Hendry should too. Take former top prospects/high draft picks off another team's hands for nothing:

 

http://espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=5910

http://espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=5650

http://espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?playerId=4838

http://espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=4572

http://espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?playerId=5998

http://espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?playerId=6224

[Dallas Green]

Is Cashner still one pitch away from being a starter?

 

I still have a nagging feeling without A Gon or Greinke type of move, we cant be a real threat.

[abuck1220]

go get some guys for cheap with real talent.

 

oh is that all?

Yep. Other teams have figured it out, Hendry should too. Take former top prospects/high draft picks off another team's hands for nothing:

 

http://espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=5910

http://espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=5650

http://espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?playerId=4838

http://espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=4572

http://espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?playerId=5998

http://espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?playerId=6224

 

so don't give up much in trades or pay much for guys that are good at baseball.

 

i think this is the new moneyball, guys.

[abuck1220]

i guess it's back to the ol' drawing board with my "pay terrible players a lot of money" plan that i've been kicking around.

[17 Seconds]

gene wojciechowski is doing gene wojciechowski things again

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&page=wojciechowski/101020&sportCat=mlb

 

i love how he's been on the ryno-for-manager bandwagon forever, and the whole time his only reaosning is that he's a former cubs great and it's good for the fans. he never talks about the actual baseball impact.