Re: Projecting the 2013 Cubs

[Guest]

we know this team blows on paper and we also know that a team that should suck sometimes wont for an extended period of time. We are also in a division that will likely not produce a wire-wire, runaway winner.

 

Since we have a few solid prospects and the ability to take on contracts, where do we think we need to be in June and July for the front office to make a go of it this year?

 

Within 3-4 games of a wild card spot.

 

If there are 3-4 teams in front of us, I don't think so. I think we need to be within a game for us to truly go for it.

 

True, it definitely depends on how many teams are in front, too. And, like Kyle said, there can/should be varying degrees of what going for it would entail.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

What does "truly go for it" mean?

 

There can be a continuum here. It doesn't have to be "trade everything that isn't nailed down and try to lose 100" or "Ship out three top prospects for a stud rental."

 

I would think there are three options.

 

Fire sale.

Hold firm.

Actually go out and try to acquire a difference maker.

 

There are variations of those, like a Vitters for somebody's overpaid veteran which is essentially holding firm. The chances of actually going out and acquiring a difference maker would probably require the team being in first or second by late July.

 

My guess:

 

I can't see any situation in which they "actually go for it" by that definition, unless there's a deal so good that they can't pass it up and won't get another shot at it (like a Price or Stanton).

 

If they are .500 or better, they hold firm.

 

Anything below .500, and they fire sale as hard as they possibly can.

[Guest]

What does "truly go for it" mean?

 

There can be a continuum here. It doesn't have to be "trade everything that isn't nailed down and try to lose 100" or "Ship out three top prospects for a stud rental."

 

I would think there are three options.

 

Fire sale.

Hold firm.

Actually go out and try to acquire a difference maker.

 

There are variations of those, like a Vitters for somebody's overpaid veteran which is essentially holding firm. The chances of actually going out and acquiring a difference maker would probably require the team being in first or second by late July.

 

What do you mean by this?

 

Like a trade for McGriff (or the 03 trade, except Ramirez wasn't overpaid yet, but also wasn't great yet and didn't cost a ton to acquire) would be holding firm?

 

Do you just mean that in terms of the fact that they wouldn't be giving up any of their future (depending on what your opinion of Vitters is)?

[Tracer Bullet]

I think jersey is right there. If we can take a prospect that the FO isn't terribly high on and turn him into a piece that might be useful bc we're on the fringe of a playoff spot, I can easily see that happening.

[davell]

I can see both selling and buying going on, which would be fun. Soriano, DeJesus, Marmol, maybe Garza could be gone. But if a few guys with multiple years of control become available, I could see us adding at the same time. Part of me thinks we'll be closer to the division lead than a WC spot though. Nats, Braves, Giants, and Dodgers could all have better records than anyone in our division by the end of July.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

If we assume the Cubs are a true-talent 77-win team (win percentage .475), then after starting 1-0, our odds of being at .500 or better after 90 games are about 40%.

[Guest]

I think jersey is right there. If we can take a prospect that the FO isn't terribly high on and turn him into a piece that might be useful bc we're on the fringe of a playoff spot, I can easily see that happening.

 

THAT WAS ME

[davell]

The issue here though is with the addition of a 2nd WC, more teams stay in the race. Making it harder to find things that you CAN buy. Obviously things can change, but I see no one in the AL East as sellers. Just the Twins in the Central. The Astros, maybe the Mariners, in the West. NL East-Marlins, probably the Mets. Our division? If anyone(other than us) its the Brewers or Pirates. And the West has the Rockies, maybe the Pads.....If you look at the rosters of those teams, its not pretty. Basically zero pitching worth a [expletive] will be available and my guess is Headley is far and away the best position player out therr.

[Guest]

If we assume the Cubs are a true-talent 77-win team (win percentage .475), then after starting 1-0, our odds of being at .500 or better after 90 games are about 40%.

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/odds/

 

 

playoff odds are almost up to 20% :clapping:

[Guest]

I think jersey is right there. If we can take a prospect that the FO isn't terribly high on and turn him into a piece that might be useful bc we're on the fringe of a playoff spot, I can easily see that happening.

 

Yep. To use different terms, if they're more than a few games out of a wildcard spot, they'll start making the current team worse to make future teams better. If they're in the hunt for a spot, they may make a move to make the future nominally worse to make the current nominally better(e.g. trading a Vitters, a Lake, or a Watkins for a bullpen arm or FA-to-be 3B). And no matter what I like to think they'll be on the lookout for moves that make both the current and future better(i.e. Stanton or similar sell off of talent).

[sneakypower]

What does "truly go for it" mean?

 

There can be a continuum here. It doesn't have to be "trade everything that isn't nailed down and try to lose 100" or "Ship out three top prospects for a stud rental."

 

I would think there are three options.

 

Fire sale.

Hold firm.

Actually go out and try to acquire a difference maker.

 

There are variations of those, like a Vitters for somebody's overpaid veteran which is essentially holding firm. The chances of actually going out and acquiring a difference maker would probably require the team being in first or second by late July.

option four, and maybe my favorite, is to still pick up a devalued asset regardless of our status as sellers

 

if we're out of playoff reach, we can trade off Soriano/DeJesus/Marmol, etc. and still pick up future contributors; the Yankees got 2-1/2 good years of Abreu by relieving the Phillies of his contract, same with the Dodgers going after Hanley (unless you think Eovaldi was a significant return [i don't])

[Hairyducked Idiot]

After July 30 last year, .500 on the dot put you 7 games out of the 2nd WC. Would we really firesale a .500 team?

[Banedon]

If we assume the Cubs are a true-talent 77-win team (win percentage .475), then after starting 1-0, our odds of being at .500 or better after 90 games are about 40%.

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/odds/

 

 

playoff odds are almost up to 20% :clapping:

 

Somebody math me here....why do the Cubs have a lower expected win total and higher expected loss total than Milwaukee, and yet have better playoff odds? Specifically, why better WC odds?

[jersey cubs fan]

What do you mean by this?

 

Wasn't it your statement in the first place?

 

I think the front office would like to find an opportunity to move Vitters. I don't think you could get a hell of a lot for him, but you could centerpiece him in a deal that looks like you are doing something while essentially holding firm with all the prospects you actually want to hold onto.

[jersey cubs fan]

If we assume the Cubs are a true-talent 77-win team (win percentage .475), then after starting 1-0, our odds of being at .500 or better after 90 games are about 40%.

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/odds/

 

 

playoff odds are almost up to 20% :clapping:

 

Somebody math me here....why do the Cubs have a lower expected win total and higher expected loss total than Milwaukee, and yet have better playoff odds? Specifically, why better WC odds?

 

The note said that wasn't the actual expected win total, for whatever that's worth.

[Guest]

After July 30 last year, .500 on the dot put you 7 games out of the 2nd WC. Would we really firesale a .500 team?

 

For whatever it's worth, .500 on July 1 would've been 3 games out, 5 games out on the 15th, and 5-6 games out on August 15th and August 30th.

[Guest]

What do you mean by this?

 

Wasn't it your statement in the first place?

I think the front office would like to find an opportunity to move Vitters. I don't think you could get a hell of a lot for him, but you could centerpiece him in a deal that looks like you are doing something while essentially holding firm with all the prospects you actually want to hold onto.

 

I meant by the part of classifying at holding firm, sorry.

[davell]

After July 30 last year, .500 on the dot put you 7 games out of the 2nd WC. Would we really firesale a .500 team?

I don't care if we're 10 games OVER .500, if we're 7 out of the last playoff spot, we better be selling.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

After July 30 last year, .500 on the dot put you 7 games out of the 2nd WC. Would we really firesale a .500 team?

I don't care if we're 10 games OVER .500, if we're 7 out of the last playoff spot, we better be selling.

 

I think Epstein chose his words very carefully when he said '78 is no different than 73' or whatever. There was a reason he didn't say 81 is no different than 71.

[Guest]

After July 30 last year, .500 on the dot put you 7 games out of the 2nd WC. Would we really firesale a .500 team?

I don't care if we're 10 games OVER .500, if we're 7 out of the last playoff spot, we better be selling.

 

I think Epstein chose his words very carefully when he said '78 is no different than 73' or whatever. There was a reason he didn't say 81 is no different than 71.

 

I think that if they're far enough away and the things they'd be trading are things they wouldn't have next year anyway (i.e. an unextendable Garza), then they wouldn't hesitate to sell those pieces even if they are at .500.

[SouthSideRyan]

After July 30 last year, .500 on the dot put you 7 games out of the 2nd WC. Would we really firesale a .500 team?

I don't care if we're 10 games OVER .500, if we're 7 out of the last playoff spot, we better be selling.

 

You think there are going to be 4 teams(assuming one of the other division leaders isn't ahead of both wild cards) 24 games over 500 on July 31st?

[Tracer Bullet]

After July 30 last year, .500 on the dot put you 7 games out of the 2nd WC. Would we really firesale a .500 team?

I don't care if we're 10 games OVER .500, if we're 7 out of the last playoff spot, we better be selling.

 

You think there are going to be 4 teams(assuming one of the other division leaders isn't ahead of both wild cards) 24 games over 500 on July 31st?

 

Not sure that statement was to be taken quite so literally.

[davell]

After July 30 last year, .500 on the dot put you 7 games out of the 2nd WC. Would we really firesale a .500 team?

I don't care if we're 10 games OVER .500, if we're 7 out of the last playoff spot, we better be selling.

 

You think there are going to be 4 teams(assuming one of the other division leaders isn't ahead of both wild cards) 24 games over 500 on July 31st?

The point is if you're 7 out, you sell. Record be damned.

[SouthSideRyan]

After July 30 last year, .500 on the dot put you 7 games out of the 2nd WC. Would we really firesale a .500 team?

I don't care if we're 10 games OVER .500, if we're 7 out of the last playoff spot, we better be selling.

 

You think there are going to be 4 teams(assuming one of the other division leaders isn't ahead of both wild cards) 24 games over 500 on July 31st?

The point is if you're 7 out, you sell. Record be damned.

 

What if we're 2 out and under 500?

[Guest]

After July 30 last year, .500 on the dot put you 7 games out of the 2nd WC. Would we really firesale a .500 team?

I don't care if we're 10 games OVER .500, if we're 7 out of the last playoff spot, we better be selling.

 

You think there are going to be 4 teams(assuming one of the other division leaders isn't ahead of both wild cards) 24 games over 500 on July 31st?

The point is if you're 7 out, you sell. Record be damned.

 

What if we're 2 out and under 500?

 

Attempt to trade Vitters, Lake, Watkins, etc. for a good player on a salary dump.