Moving forward- very early look at 2013

[illiniguy]

Speaking of awesome pitching this morning, potential future Cubs ace Cole Hamels on the mound this year:

 

62 IP / 50 H/ 16 R/ 15 ER (love only one unearned run so far, random)/ 5 HR/ 13 BB/ 66 K/ 2.61 FIP/ 2.89 xFIP

 

Not getting as many groundballs as last year (52.3 vs 42.7%), but he's also getting more swinging strikes (11.3 vs 13%) and again killing it on first pitch strikes.

 

Just saying if they sign this guy, Shark is real, and Garza sticks around suddenly they have one of the better top threes in the league, with possibly plenty of viable 4-5 options (Wood, Volstad, maybe resign Dempster, maybe McNutt shows up, and so on).

 

Make it happy Tanny! Er wrong team...Ricketts/Theo/Hoyer!

 

All of this talk about Cespedes' contract that we wouldn't give him and you think the Cubs are going to give Hamels the 7 year/$150 million contract he's seeking.

 

Yeah, they probably won't ever sign somebody to more than 2Y/9M

Lot of 30 win teams coming, Theo was a double secret cardinal agent.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Would $50-60 million be enough to fix this bullpen in one offseason? That's my main worry.

[CubColtPacer]

If a team's assumption at the time of Cespedes' signing was that he'd be worthless for a while before kicking it into gear, then his 4 years to FA contract doesn't seem all that appetizing. You'd have to believe that after struggling he'd become the new Vlad or some 5-7 win monster, otherwise you'd have just as much benefit from making consecutive small deals with a DeJesus/Willingham type player, and there'd be less performance and contract risk.

 

didn't he get 4/36? and don't we assume 5 million per WAR?

 

unless one of those is wrong, he'd have to flame out pretty hard to not be worth the money.

 

That forgets two things:

 

1) Free agency is necessary, but inefficient. 5 million per WAR compares to other players who were bought in free agency. And every dollar spent in free agency is not spent on pre-FA players, who are a lot more efficient.

 

2) The scale starts to break down as you get to worse and worse players because they become more and more replaceable. There are lots of players who will likely be 1-2 WAR players if just given enough playing time that can be gotten from clubs for next to nothing. For example, that is what the Cubs have in Tony Campana. So not only does Cespedes (if he's a 2-2.5 WAR type of player) not give a 2 WAR upgrade from his minimum salary replacement, but he also complicates the team's ability to acquire a true star for that position if it ever becomes available. And the 7-14 million average to above average types of players have more trouble being traded for any value as the Cubs have seen with several players the last few years.

 

So if he's going to take time to figure it out, he better become a star or he likely isn't worth it.

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

Speaking of awesome pitching this morning, potential future Cubs ace Cole Hamels on the mound this year:

 

62 IP / 50 H/ 16 R/ 15 ER (love only one unearned run so far, random)/ 5 HR/ 13 BB/ 66 K/ 2.61 FIP/ 2.89 xFIP

 

Not getting as many groundballs as last year (52.3 vs 42.7%), but he's also getting more swinging strikes (11.3 vs 13%) and again killing it on first pitch strikes.

 

Just saying if they sign this guy, Shark is real, and Garza sticks around suddenly they have one of the better top threes in the league, with possibly plenty of viable 4-5 options (Wood, Volstad, maybe resign Dempster, maybe McNutt shows up, and so on).

 

Make it happy Tanny! Er wrong team...Ricketts/Theo/Hoyer!

 

All of this talk about Cespedes' contract that we wouldn't give him and you think the Cubs are going to give Hamels the 7 year/$150 million contract he's seeking.

 

Proven MLB ace level talent >>> Lamest YouTube workout video of all time (of all time!)

 

They didn't pass on Cespedes because he was out of the Cubs' general price range. He was out of the range of what they wanted to give him, big difference. Didn't they want more years/same money?

Edited May 24, 2012 by PriortoTheoIhadWood

[Hairyducked Idiot]

There are lots of players who will likely be 1-2 WAR players if just given enough playing time that can be gotten from clubs for next to nothing.

 

Guys who can be gotten from clubs for next to nothing whenever we need them are literally the definition of 0 WAR.

[SouthSideRyan]

There are lots of players who will likely be 1-2 WAR players if just given enough playing time that can be gotten from clubs for next to nothing.

 

Guys who can be gotten from clubs for next to nothing whenever we need them are literally the definition of 0 WAR.

 

Of theoretical WAR

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

I'll also take Colby Lewis over Marcum, who I can't understand the infatuation for. OK, I can understand the infatuation I just don't care for it. Lewis does have a better chance at getting resigned by his team.

[Tracer Bullet]

If a team's assumption at the time of Cespedes' signing was that he'd be worthless for a while before kicking it into gear, then his 4 years to FA contract doesn't seem all that appetizing. You'd have to believe that after struggling he'd become the new Vlad or some 5-7 win monster, otherwise you'd have just as much benefit from making consecutive small deals with a DeJesus/Willingham type player, and there'd be less performance and contract risk.

 

didn't he get 4/36? and don't we assume 5 million per WAR?

 

unless one of those is wrong, he'd have to flame out pretty hard to not be worth the money.

 

That forgets two things:

 

1) Free agency is necessary, but inefficient. 5 million per WAR compares to other players who were bought in free agency. And every dollar spent in free agency is not spent on pre-FA players, who are a lot more efficient.

 

2) The scale starts to break down as you get to worse and worse players because they become more and more replaceable. There are lots of players who will likely be 1-2 WAR players if just given enough playing time that can be gotten from clubs for next to nothing. For example, that is what the Cubs have in Tony Campana. So not only does Cespedes (if he's a 2-2.5 WAR type of player) not give a 2 WAR upgrade from his minimum salary replacement, but he also complicates the team's ability to acquire a true star for that position if it ever becomes available. And the 7-14 million average to above average types of players have more trouble being traded for any value as the Cubs have seen with several players the last few years.

 

So if he's going to take time to figure it out, he better become a star or he likely isn't worth it.

 

This is a really great post.

[CubColtPacer]

There are lots of players who will likely be 1-2 WAR players if just given enough playing time that can be gotten from clubs for next to nothing.

 

Guys who can be gotten from clubs for next to nothing whenever we need them are literally the definition of 0 WAR.

 

You're right. But I'm talking about the next level up. Players who are undervalued by their club because of limited upside, or being blocked by better players, or being out of options. They tend to get waived or traded for very little. You don't always have those types of players available to you, but they are available so often that if you are considering a free agent, it would be relatively difficult for you not to be able to find a very cheap alternative that can be a little better than replacement level.

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

There are lots of players who will likely be 1-2 WAR players if just given enough playing time that can be gotten from clubs for next to nothing.

 

Guys who can be gotten from clubs for next to nothing whenever we need them are literally the definition of 0 WAR.

 

You're right. But I'm talking about the next level up. Players who are undervalued by their club because of limited upside, or being blocked by better players, or being out of options. They tend to get waived or traded for very little. You don't always have those types of players available to you, but they are available so often that if you are considering a free agent, it would be relatively difficult for you not to be able to find a very cheap alternative that can be a little better than replacement level.

 

So like a Nick Swisher circa 2008 type? David Ortiz circa whatever year that was? Too much to look/ask for? Any idea who could be one of those guys this year? I can't think of one...Travis Snider gets thrown out alot but no one knows the price...This is the type of move this new FO should be significantly better at finding than the past one (does Ramirez count as one of those moves?).

[Backtobanks]

Everything I've read sounded like Theo doesn't want to go past 5 years for a pitcher. With Hamels seeking 7 and plenty of willing teams, I can't see how he ends up a Cub unless one of them changes their stance.

[El Duderino]

I'd like to see all these quotes from Theo that you're using to infer he won't ever go past 5 years for a pitcher.

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

Everything I've read sounded like Theo doesn't want to go past 5 years for a pitcher. With Hamels seeking 7 and plenty of willing teams, I can't see how he ends up a Cub unless one of them changes their stance.

 

Nobody likes to give FAs the years or money they get. Plus, name one thing you read that actually said that. That's got to be nearly impossible to do unless you build your own pitching staff or sign the John Lackeys and AJ Burnetts of the FA market. Maybe if they trade for the pitcher...Garza could get 5 years if/when they resign him.

[Backtobanks]

Everything I've read sounded like Theo doesn't want to go past 5 years for a pitcher. With Hamels seeking 7 and plenty of willing teams, I can't see how he ends up a Cub unless one of them changes their stance.

 

I'd like to see all these quotes from Theo that you're using to infer he won't ever go past 5 years for a pitcher.

 

There's quite a difference between "Theo doesn't want to go past 5 years" and "he won't ever go past 5 years". The next question is whether Theo is ready to spend that much money next year on what could be a mediocre team or is he going "all in" (Upton, Hamels, etc.) to contend next year.

[SouthSideRyan]

So you don't have any evidence at all then.

[Tracer Bullet]

Everything I've read sounded like Theo doesn't want to go past 5 years for a pitcher. With Hamels seeking 7 and plenty of willing teams, I can't see how he ends up a Cub unless one of them changes their stance.

 

I'd like to see all these quotes from Theo that you're using to infer he won't ever go past 5 years for a pitcher.

 

There's quite a difference between "Theo doesn't want to go past 5 years" and "he won't ever go past 5 years". The next question is whether Theo is ready to spend that much money next year on what could be a mediocre team or is he going "all in" (Upton, Hamels, etc.) to contend next year.

 

Then post the quotes you based your statement on.

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

BJ Upton just nailed Pedroia at home plate from CF. Havent seen him do that in a while, but his arm was known to be very strong back before his shoulder injury. That wasn't even the best thow I've seen him make as a pro.

 

I would like him to be a Cub.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Seems like as good a place to put this as any:

 

Part of it is just that I'm a fan and see things through a fan's eyes, but I was thinking about 2013 and realizing that I was happy with virtually every position being brought back if need be. Which is of course silly, because the offense is bad. So why is it bad, and how do we get to adequacy by 2013?

 

The Cubs are currently 14th in the 16-team NL with 3.57 runs per game. The league average is 4.14. That difference puts us 30 runs below average and on pace to score 92 runs fewer than league average this season.

 

Using baseball reference's Runs Above Average, B-R's positional adjustment, and doing some rough playing time splits when needed, I came up with the following totals for our offensive runs relative to NL positional average:

 

C -10

1b +7

2b -2

SS +2

3b -6

LF -2

CF -8

RF +3

P -4

PH +1

 

 

That's a total of -19. There's some rounding issues in there, but the biggest culprit for the missing 11 runs is negative variance in clutch situations. The Cubs have hit for a .718 OPS with the bases empty vs. .647 with runners on base.

 

What does all this tell us? Nothing we don't already know, but I like it in number form.

 

At catcher, the problem children have been Geovany Soto and Koyie Hill. Nothing you can do about Soto's horrific BABIP luck or having three catchers hurt simultaneously, so I guess you just have to stand pat here.

 

1b has been good, and while LaHair has still been a bit lucky, I think his peripherals support an above-average offensive 1b.

 

2b has Barney well above average, but the position has been dragged down by abysmal cameos from Blake Dewitt and Adrian Cardenas. I'd say we need to give up our fascination with bad AAA middle infielders, but that's how we found Barney.

 

SS is fine, and I think Castro probably has another gear in him.

 

Ian Stewart's bad luck has been well documented. I think it's pretty clear that we can have above-average 3b production just by standing pat here.

 

LF has been bad, and I think it will continue to be bad once Soriano inevitably cools off. This is a position screaming for an upgrade. It could be LaHair or it could be external, but I think this has to be a major focus for improving in 2013.

 

CF has been horrific. Marlon Byrd was awful, we sold low, and then we turned it over to Tony Campana and Joe Mather. That chain of events has Ed Lynch written all over it, but that's fine because we're just holding and waiting for Brett Jackson. I still have lingering doubts about Jackson, and I wouldn't be stunned to see the Cubs go in another direction in CF if one becomes available.

 

RF has been fine and should continue to be fine.

 

So in summary, I may be being a huge homer to me, but it seems like the Cubs can become an average offense by next season just by mostly standing pat and not being so unlucky.

[Backtobanks]

Seems like as good a place to put this as any:

 

Part of it is just that I'm a fan and see things through a fan's eyes, but I was thinking about 2013 and realizing that I was happy with virtually every position being brought back if need be. Which is of course silly, because the offense is bad. So why is it bad, and how do we get to adequacy by 2013?

 

The Cubs are currently 14th in the 16-team NL with 3.57 runs per game. The league average is 4.14. That difference puts us 30 runs below average and on pace to score 92 runs fewer than league average this season.

 

Using baseball reference's Runs Above Average, B-R's positional adjustment, and doing some rough playing time splits when needed, I came up with the following totals for our offensive runs relative to NL positional average:

 

C -10

1b +7

2b -2

SS +2

3b -6

LF -2

CF -8

RF +3

P -4

PH +1

 

 

That's a total of -19. There's some rounding issues in there, but the biggest culprit for the missing 11 runs is negative variance in clutch situations. The Cubs have hit for a .718 OPS with the bases empty vs. .647 with runners on base.

 

What does all this tell us? Nothing we don't already know, but I like it in number form.

 

At catcher, the problem children have been Geovany Soto and Koyie Hill. Nothing you can do about Soto's horrific BABIP luck or having three catchers hurt simultaneously, so I guess you just have to stand pat here.

 

1b has been good, and while LaHair has still been a bit lucky, I think his peripherals support an above-average offensive 1b.

 

2b has Barney well above average, but the position has been dragged down by abysmal cameos from Blake Dewitt and Adrian Cardenas. I'd say we need to give up our fascination with bad AAA middle infielders, but that's how we found Barney.

 

SS is fine, and I think Castro probably has another gear in him.

 

Ian Stewart's bad luck has been well documented. I think it's pretty clear that we can have above-average 3b production just by standing pat here.

 

LF has been bad, and I think it will continue to be bad once Soriano inevitably cools off. This is a position screaming for an upgrade. It could be LaHair or it could be external, but I think this has to be a major focus for improving in 2013.

 

CF has been horrific. Marlon Byrd was awful, we sold low, and then we turned it over to Tony Campana and Joe Mather. That chain of events has Ed Lynch written all over it, but that's fine because we're just holding and waiting for Brett Jackson. I still have lingering doubts about Jackson, and I wouldn't be stunned to see the Cubs go in another direction in CF if one becomes available.

 

RF has been fine and should continue to be fine.

 

So in summary, I may be being a huge homer to me, but it seems like the Cubs can become an average offense by next season just by mostly standing pat and not being so unlucky.

 

I can't see how standing pat with this horrorific offense is going to "become average" next season. Brett Jackson could (should) be an upgrade in CF. I've read the discussion about Stewart's bad luck, but he seems to be all he's ever going to be at 3B. Soto & co. at catcher is always a question mark because you don't know what you're going to get. I like LaHair, but I do think the league is going to catch up with him and bring the numbers back down to earth. Obviously Rizzo is the one big hope to help the offense. I think the key is to bring in one big bat (Upton?) and hope that Rizzo and Jackson can produce decently as rookies. Of course an improved offense may not translate to many wins if Dempster and Garza are traded and we have to go with youth in the rotation.

[dew1679666265]

So in summary, I may be being a huge homer to me, but it seems like the Cubs can become an average offense by next season just by mostly standing pat and not being so unlucky.

 

Good analysis. The only real question I have is why are we content with, if everything breaks right, being average offensively? I realize we can't fix this offense completely in one offseason and I don't think we should necessarily try, but the fact that this squad's offensive upside is average is exactly the reason we shouldn't stand pat. I'm not sure we should overhaul the offense this offseason, but we need more offensive upside than average.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

So in summary, I may be being a huge homer to me, but it seems like the Cubs can become an average offense by next season just by mostly standing pat and not being so unlucky.

 

Good analysis. The only real question I have is why are we content with, if everything breaks right, being average offensively? I realize we can't fix this offense completely in one offseason and I don't think we should necessarily try, but the fact that this squad's offensive upside is average is exactly the reason we shouldn't stand pat. I'm not sure we should overhaul the offense this offseason, but we need more offensive upside than average.

 

It's more of a pre-emptive strike at the "why should we even bother trying to get impact players just to get to average" attitudes.

 

Also, we know the bullpen will be way below average heading into the offseason, and who knows what the rotation will be like, so we may have to settle for an average offense to focus on pitching.

[dew1679666265]

It's more of a pre-emptive strike at the "why should we even bother trying to get impact players just to get to average" attitudes.

 

Also, we know the bullpen will be way below average heading into the offseason, and who knows what the rotation will be like, so we may have to settle for an average offense to focus on pitching.

 

That makes sense. There's really never a bad time to add an impact bat, so I don't get that argument at all (though I didn't get it this past offseason either and we saw how that turned out).

 

Your second point is exactly why I think we should keep Garza. It's very unlikely we get the type of deal we want for him anyway, but even if we do, you're crippling a team that has a chance to get kind of competitive next year. A lot would have to go our way to have a chance to be competitive next year, but there's been enough positives this year that I'd hate to see us trade Garza and pretty much surrender any chance at being competitive next year (without going crazy monetarily and adding Hamels/Upton/Drew/Marcum or something in the offseason).

[dew1679666265]

I've read the discussion about Stewart's bad luck, but he seems to be all he's ever going to be at 3B.

 

Probably shouldn't start this debate again, but why do you think this? Are you arguing his BABIP won't improve, that his numbers won't get better even after his BABIP adjusts up, or that he'll quit hitting the ball hard as his BABIP rises?

 

I can understand not believing there will be a huge spike in his numbers when his BABIP adjusts, but to say that he "is what he is" right now seems to ignore the strong likelihood of a strong improvement in his numbers correlating with a natural BABIP adjustment.

[Vanilla Ice]

With Baker, Pena, Zambrano, Dempster, and R. Johnson coming off the books, there should be a lot of spare money. That is about 40 million freeing up, in addition to the flexibility that we already have. While arbitration raises will eat some of this money up, there should be enough room to add 2 premium free agents.

 

C-Soto /Castillo

1B-Rizzo/LaHair

2B-Barney/Cardenas

SS-Castro/Barney

3B-Stewart/Vitters

LF-Jackson/LaHair

CF-Upton/Jackson/Campana

RF-DeJesus/Campana

 

I might be crazy, but that is not bad of an offense. The defense should be phenomenal at pretty much every position. I see plus defense at C, 1B, 2B, and LF for sure. SS, 3B, CF, and RF all could be. Optimistically, there could be plus defense at every single position. Rizzo is supposed to be a good defender, no?

 

SP-Garza

SP-A. Sanchez/Hamels/Grienke

SP-Samardzija

SP-Dempster

SP-Wood/Volstad/Maholm

 

If we could get Dempster back on a cheap deal, that is a damn strong 1-4. One of Wood, Volstad, or Maholm should definitely be serviceable in the last spot.

 

I have enough faith in Theo and Jed to be able to put together a bullpen that I am not even going to try.

 

Throw in some more luck, Upton and a premium SP, and some continued development, the 2013 roster should be good enough to compete for a playoff spot. There is certainly a lot of room for projection on that roster.

[Backtobanks]

With Baker, Pena, Zambrano, Dempster, and R. Johnson coming off the books, there should be a lot of spare money. That is about 40 million freeing up, in addition to the flexibility that we already have. While arbitration raises will eat some of this money up, there should be enough room to add 2 premium free agents.

 

C-Soto /Castillo

1B-Rizzo/LaHair

2B-Barney/Cardenas

SS-Castro/Barney

3B-Stewart/Vitters

LF-Jackson/LaHair

CF-Upton/Jackson/Campana

RF-DeJesus/Campana

 

I might be crazy, but that is not bad of an offense. The defense should be phenomenal at pretty much every position. I see plus defense at C, 1B, 2B, and LF for sure. SS, 3B, CF, and RF all could be. Optimistically, there could be plus defense at every single position. Rizzo is supposed to be a good defender, no?

 

SP-Garza

SP-A. Sanchez/Hamels/Grienke

SP-Samardzija

SP-Dempster

SP-Wood/Volstad/Maholm

 

If we could get Dempster back on a cheap deal, that is a damn strong 1-4. One of Wood, Volstad, or Maholm should definitely be serviceable in the last spot.

 

I have enough faith in Theo and Jed to be able to put together a bullpen that I am not even going to try.

 

Throw in some more luck, Upton and a premium SP, and some continued development, the 2013 roster should be good enough to compete for a playoff spot. There is certainly a lot of room for projection on that roster.

 

I totally agree, but I don't think Theo is going to spend the necessary money next year. I think he will continue to analyze the situation for another year and then spend or trade to fill in the holes.