Piecing together the 25 Man Roster

[toonsterwu]

If Campana is being sent down, it does seem to suggest a 12 man staff. Maybe that means Shawn Camp makes it.

 

The biggest issue I have with the makeup of the pen is that there are so few legitimate guys with consistent swing and miss secondary pitches. There's some heat, assuming a guy like Castillo, de la Cruz make it along with Dolis.

 

That said, it's a rebuilding year and we'll get to see if Dolis can develop at the MLB level. I know the argument for Dolis' low K rates last year has always been that he had the stuff, but the Cubs wanted him to focus on control. For lack of a better way to phrase it, seeing is believing, though, and I'll be curious if he can show a consistently good breaking ball.

 

I'm partly assuming that the final pen decisions haven't been made because the Cubs are probably inquiring with the Phillies about what it would take to keep Castillo in the minors. Maybe that's a wrong assumption.

[KingCubsFan]

Really, the pen is that offensive for you guys? It just looks like your run of mill who [expletive] knows bullpen.

 

That's what I was thinking. Worst ever is hilarious.

 

I'm pretty sure the 2003 pen looked WAYYYY uglier on paper.

I don't know. At least going into the season you had Cruz (one of the best young arms in the game at the time), Farnsworth (was awesome in 2001, so at least there was hope), Remlinger (a pretty big free agent signing) and Guthrie. This bullpen features a guy who walked too many and struck too few out in AA last year, a Rule V pick and Rodrigo Lopez. Plus Russell isn't exactly lights out against righties. I'm not too concerned, given how volatile bullpens are in general, but on paper it looks really bad. However, by the middle of the year, I fully expect guys like Beliveau and Parker up.

 

That's a plus, but a guy who is one year removed from being easily one of the best relievers in the game for a 3-4 year stretch is part of the worst bullpen ever?

 

And you just compared some front end guys to the back end of this bullpen...

I didn't mention closers or setup men. And I wasn't purposely putting the best of 2003 against the worst of this year. I didn't even mention Borowski because I thought was the primary setup man heading into that year (although now that I look at the box scores I may have been wrong about that). Heading into 2003, even Dave Veres and Alan Benes looked like a better bet for sucess than Castillo or Lopez.

 

Edit: And keep in mind who was running that team. As we all know far too well, Hendry invested quite a bit in bullpen construction every year. I prefer Epstein's method.

[sneakypower]

I'd have loved to see Wells traded, but I'm assuming if there was any real interest he'd have been before being optioned. Still, it won't surprise me if he's traded sooner than later. He is an experienced, serviceable back of the rotation guy.

"how do I tell them that, because of the unfreezing process, i have no inner-monologue?"

[toonsterwu]

Wells trade value may be higher in our minds than reality (including myself). After all, he passed through optional waivers with no one having interest. I tend to think if someone really wanted a starter like Wells, they would've claimed him, forced us to pull him, and then try to discuss a deal.

 

Sending him to AAA is probably the best way to build up trade value, as he'll get regular innings, rather than the inconsistent innings he probably would've gotten out of the pen.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Wells trade value may be higher in our minds than reality (including myself). After all, he passed through optional waivers with no one having interest. I tend to think if someone really wanted a starter like Wells, they would've claimed him, forced us to pull him, and then try to discuss a deal.

 

Sending him to AAA is probably the best way to build up trade value, as he'll get regular innings, rather than the inconsistent innings he probably would've gotten out of the pen.

 

Trade value or not, it's good to have him as a backup plan along with Wood. Any or all of Shark, Volstad, and Maholm could crash and burn hard and while they have higher ceilings, Wells and Wood are likely safer bets to be serviceable back end guys. Also, who knows if and when Garza could still be traded. It's good to have options like them rather than cycling through every out of work 30 something junk baller if the need arrives.

 

As for trade value, when it comes to guys like Wells, nobody is going to jump at the opportunity to get him but if some team without sufficient depth loses a mid-back end starter for a month or two, those are the types of guys they'll inquire on.

 

Despite public opinion, they're clearly structuring this team for the best chance to win, not just audition prospects and we can't fault them for that but as soon as they feel as though they're out of it, be it June, July, or August we'll start seeing some changes.

[Guest]

Sveum was talking up Corpas in the last day or so. Could he be the 12th guy (or maybe I missed him being cut or something)?

[davell]

I see that Marlin, over at PSD, mentioned the Twins, among others, have interest in Wells. Cleveland likes Byrd as well. For some reason, I see the deal we wind up making in a few days or sooner, is Baker for Uehara. But I do see us making a trade before the season starts, that affects our opening day roster.

[Backtobanks]

I can't believe Wells has much trade value. He's probably much more valuable as rotation depth than trade bait.

[Backtobanks]

After looking at this roster and reading the last few pages, I wonder if anyone wants to reassess their prediction as to how many wins this team will have.

[SouthSideRyan]

After looking at this roster and reading the last few pages, I wonder if anyone wants to reassess their prediction as to how many wins this team will have.

 

What do you have us down to, about 7 wins?

[Tracer Bullet]

Come on. Anything under double digits is a tad unrealistic.

[toonsterwu]

I don't know what others are predicting but I tend to think 60-72 wins is the realistic range. I think the pitching should be good enough to help us to around 60 wins, even accounting for a possible late season sale.

[Guest]

I don't know what others are predicting but I tend to think 60-72 wins is the realistic range. I think the pitching should be good enough to help us to around 60 wins, even accounting for a possible late season sale.

 

 

Far too low.

 

 

75 is the number.

[toonsterwu]

60 would be low end, and I hope you are right on mid-70s, but I tend to think they may sell a bit at the deadline so I could see some struggles in the second half.

[CubColtPacer]

60 would be low end, and I hope you are right on mid-70s, but I tend to think they may sell a bit at the deadline so I could see some struggles in the second half.

 

Unless they trade Garza, I don't see selling being that big of a damper on the win total. They may trade Byrd to make room for Jackson, but unless Byrd is having a big year that isn't much of a downgrade if at all. Rizzo will likely come up midseason and probably be as good or an improvement. Wood or Wells can come up and provide decent production and be close to just about anybody in the rotation besides Garza. The parts they're going to want to sell are for the most part just won't be all that valuable to the club this year.

[SouthSideRyan]

60 wins???

[El Duderino]

if the cubs win 60, the astros might not get to 45

[Gilby]

Let's not forget some of the starting pitchers we were trotting out there last season. 60 wins is extremely harsh.

 

This season we actually have depth. Aside from Castro and Garza, every backup isn't much, if any worse than the guy starting in front of him.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Sveum was talking up Corpas in the last day or so. Could he be the 12th guy (or maybe I missed him being cut or something)?

 

I keep forgetting about Corpas. If nothing else, I'd take him over Lopez any day of the week.

[Little Slide Rooter]

If all goes right and we hang in there enough to make a key deadline pickup or 2, 85 wins isn't out of the question. If they decide to back up the truck and liquidate in June, probably low 70's. A team has to be a special kind of bad to lose over 100 games.

[Soul]

I'm going with 75. And a few bright spots to fuel our future.

[toonsterwu]

Let's not forget some of the starting pitchers we were trotting out there last season. 60 wins is extremely harsh.

 

This season we actually have depth. Aside from Castro and Garza, every backup isn't much, if any worse than the guy starting in front of him.

 

Just picking a random comment to respond to.

 

As noted, I did say 60 was the low end. But for all this talk about depth, there's also the possibility that (not that I am expecting this, but why I have 60 as the low end)

 

- The lineup ... sucks for much of the year. The youngsters go through ... youngster struggles when they get called up. Soto hits more like he did last year. While I tend to be somewhat optimistic that Ian Stewart can be passable/decent at 3rd (offensively and defensively), it's possible the loop in his swing is something that he can't adjust/fix. It's not hard to imagine LaHair plateauing as a decent bench option. It's also not that hard to imagine DeJesus' struggling (although I think he'll be alright). Our great bench doesn't mean that any of those guys are decent starters. I do tend to think Castro will take a step forward, though.

 

- The bullpen ... sucks for much of the year. Whatever is ailing Marmol this spring isn't resolved. That leaves a pen with very few guys with swing and miss secondary pitches. I mean, it isn't that hard to imagine a crappy bullpen.

 

- The rotation isn't as good as we hoped for (now, I tend to think the rotation will be fairly solid, just speaking on a negative end possibility). Garza regresses a bit (not hard to imagine). Father Time catches up with Dempster (not hard to imagine). Volstad (who I like) and Maholm show more as end of the rotation starters than borderline 3's (also not hard to imagine). Samardzija struggles with his consistency and his slider is never consistently solid enough, and shows more as an end of the rotation arm. Wood struggles if he gets the opportunity (not that hard to imagine coming off his 2011 and his spring), and Wells (who, personally, I think could bounce back to two year's ago form) shows more as an end of the rotation innings eater when called up. I mean, much as I have championed Dempster as a decent 2 still, it's not hard imagine this rotation as a decent 2 (Garza if he regresses) and a bunch of 4's and 5's.

 

I'm not saying any of this will happen, and if you said to me, 60-72 is too wide a range, what's a specific number I'd go for, I'd say 68. But for all the talk about the depth of this squad, it's still more hope that the depth will develop than anything positive that we can feel comfortable about. So ... I really don't think it's that hard to imagine this team bottoming out as a 60 win team. I think they'll be a tad better, but I don't think it's as unrealistic as some are making it out to be. But that's me.

[dew1679666265]

I think the range is probably something like 65-75 with low 70s being the most likely outcome. 65 would mean absolutely everything went wrong and 75 would mean we really exceeded expectations.

 

I'm more optimistic on Soriano than most and I feel like Soto can rebound pretty well, but even considering that, this offense is just absolutely putrid. The bench is especially horrific. I actually think the rotation looks pretty decent at worst and the bullpen could be pretty good, but the pen could easily tank as well.

[SouthSideRyan]

My range is 69-86

[Little Slide Rooter]

My range is 69-86

 

Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but that pretty much nails it. The Cubs have more players that could go either way than most teams and with them shall go the Cubs. Granted Volstad, LaHair, Mather, and Stewart are more likely to be bad than good and Maholm, Samardjzia, DeJesus, and Soriano are more likely to be decent than great but who knows.