Edwin Jackson Signs w/ Cubs: 4 years/$52 M

[craig]

Q: Are there really 8 sandwich picks this draft, so that we'll only be at #41? I'd hoped to be a little higher up into the 30's. O well, I'm sure you guys have followed that and have it right.

 

Haven't been involved in this discussion, but I'd value a high 2nd. Is it a showstopper? No, Kyle is right, the odds of hitting big there are modest (his 1/5 x 1/4th may be pretty representative....). But we're a really bad team, and will need to hit on some lucky picks going forward. Hopefully with really committed and intelligent scouting and really committed and intelligent player development, the odds will be a little higher.

 

Admittedly I have concerns with Bourn. Much of his value comes from leg hits, baserunning/stealing, and his defense. I don't expect the Cubs will be any good for the next several years, and if/when they do become good, Bourn's legs might not be nearly as productive as they are presently. So will he actually be able to contribute to a contender? I don't know. And if his value is heavily built on his legs, will his trade value also deteriorate if his speed does?

 

So I guess I'm not wow on Bourn, although I think he's good and would be a significant help towards anti-awful right now. But I guess the second-round pick has an iffy but possible value towards contending years; I think Bourn's value towards contending years would also be somewhat iffy.

 

I'm fine to go with whatever management decides on this. If they think he's worth the cost in dollars and pick-2, I'll be excited about it and trust their judgement is good, and enjoy some less awful baseball next year.

 

I do think there is some "culture" value in creating a team that is getting the most out of it's ability and is attentive to small things. Not going to the world series with Bourn, Barney, and the rotation that we've got. But having a culture where strike-throwing is a given, and where detailed attention to defense and baserunning is a given rather than an exception, that could be a good place for rookies or outside pickups to join. If you've got an overachieving perfectionist culture, then perhaps at some time future when the talent is above average rather than below average, perhaps overachieving could win it all.

[SouthSideRyan]

I don't expect the Cubs will be any good for the next several years,

 

That's either foolish on your part or pathetic on the Cubs' front office's part.

 

The loss of the draft budget is the only reason that pick should even be considered a loss IMO.

[craig]

I don't expect the Cubs will be any good for the next several years,

 

That's either foolish on your part or pathetic on the Cubs' front office's part....

 

Heh, maybe both. Vizcaino will be coming back cautiously this year, so basically none of our top-5 prospects other than Vizcaino are going to impact this year. And given where Baez, Almora, Soler, and Vogelbach are developmentally, I don't expect any of them to be winning a lot of games for us in 2014 either.

 

So if we're going to contend in either of the next two years, it will need to be built on the poor roster we finished with, supplemented by improvement from youngsters (Castro/Rizzo/Castillo/Jackson/Vitters) and by dollar-purchased pickups.

 

I may be foolish, but I don't think we're likely to be seriously considering 90-win teams in the next two years.

[Guest]

There's a pretty large chasm between "I don't expect the Cubs will be any good for the next several years" and "I don't think we're likely to be seriously considering 90-win teams in the next two years".

[Guest]

There's a pretty large chasm between "I don't expect the Cubs will be any good for the next several years" and "I don't think we're likely to be seriously considering 90-win teams in the next two years".

The only real difference is what place they draft.

[davell]

I thought we were picking 40th, at this exact moment? Was 39th, until Swisher signed with Cleveland, and a pick had to be added. There are 30 picks in the 1st round, plus one, for the Pirates for failing to sign Appel. Each supplemental pick based on the qualified players just cancel out: 1st round loses a pick, supplemental gains one. This only changes if a top 10 protected team signs a guy. After those qualified picks, then therr are 6 competitive balance picks before the 2nd round starts.

[Guest]

There's a pretty large chasm between "I don't expect the Cubs will be any good for the next several years" and "I don't think we're likely to be seriously considering 90-win teams in the next two years".

The only real difference is what place they draft.

 

No, that is not correct.

[javy knows my name]

There's a pretty large chasm between "I don't expect the Cubs will be any good for the next several years" and "I don't think we're likely to be seriously considering 90-win teams in the next two years".

The only real difference is what place they draft.

 

No, that is not correct.

 

hahahaha

[craig]

There's a pretty large chasm between "I don't expect the Cubs will be any good for the next several years" and "I don't think we're likely to be seriously considering 90-win teams in the next two years".

 

Playoff teams either win 90 or get very close, close enough to "seriously consider" 90 as within reach. I think it's plausible that the Cubs could have a variably realistic shot at .500, or perhaps a game or two over, within the next two seasons; but not really at the playoffs. If having an outside shot to go 82-80 is "good", then I guess the Cubs could have a shot at being "any good". But I think being playoff-good, 90-win good or very close, is remotely unlikely within the next two seasons.

 

I suppose there is always a shot to "catch lightning in a bottle", as MacP or Lynch mentioned many years ago, so perhaps remotely unlikely is still a lot better than impossible.

[davell]

If yhe Cubs sign Bourn and trade Garza, getting Olt in the deal, I think it puts us as a slightly above .500 team. Trading for Upton at that point would put us squarely in contention. Granted, it'd be an awfully busy rest of the offseason and I don't expect all of that to happen. But a lineup of Bourn, Castro, Rizzo, Upton, Soriano, Olt, Schierholtz, and Barney is solid. A rotation of Shark, E-Jax, Feldman, Baker, Wood, and Villanueva is decent and the pen looks fairly solid currently as well. You'd have chips to trade for Price or Felix next offseason and enough financial flexibikity to make a run at Cano as well. I definitely think 2014 is a year we head into it thinking contention.

[Backtobanks]

If yhe Cubs sign Bourn and trade Garza, getting Olt in the deal, I think it puts us as a slightly above .500 team. Trading for Upton at that point would put us squarely in contention. Granted, it'd be an awfully busy rest of the offseason and I don't expect all of that to happen. But a lineup of Bourn, Castro, Rizzo, Upton, Soriano, Olt, Schierholtz, and Barney is solid. A rotation of Shark, E-Jax, Feldman, Baker, Wood, and Villanueva is decent and the pen looks fairly solid currently as well. You'd have chips to trade for Price or Felix next offseason and enough financial flexibikity to make a run at Cano as well. I definitely think 2014 is a year we head into it thinking contention.

 

I'm not sure you would have enough chips left for Felix or Price after trading for Upton.

[Gilby]

If yhe Cubs sign Bourn and trade Garza, getting Olt in the deal, I think it puts us as a slightly above .500 team. Trading for Upton at that point would put us squarely in contention. Granted, it'd be an awfully busy rest of the offseason and I don't expect all of that to happen. But a lineup of Bourn, Castro, Rizzo, Upton, Soriano, Olt, Schierholtz, and Barney is solid. A rotation of Shark, E-Jax, Feldman, Baker, Wood, and Villanueva is decent and the pen looks fairly solid currently as well. You'd have chips to trade for Price or Felix next offseason and enough financial flexibikity to make a run at Cano as well. I definitely think 2014 is a year we head into it thinking contention.

 

You are missing Castillo and have four outfielders, but yeah, that's a good team. Not quite Reds level, but very respectable. I wonder if Soriano would be traded in that scenario, or if they do like Schierholtz enough to start him. We still haven't heard much about him, though likely not even the front office knows what his role will be.

[davell]

Yeah, Schierholtz would be the 4th OFer, just forgot Castillo for some reason.

[Guest]

There's a pretty large chasm between "I don't expect the Cubs will be any good for the next several years" and "I don't think we're likely to be seriously considering 90-win teams in the next two years".

 

Playoff teams either win 90 or get very close, close enough to "seriously consider" 90 as within reach. I think it's plausible that the Cubs could have a variably realistic shot at .500, or perhaps a game or two over, within the next two seasons; but not really at the playoffs. If having an outside shot to go 82-80 is "good", then I guess the Cubs could have a shot at being "any good". But I think being playoff-good, 90-win good or very close, is remotely unlikely within the next two seasons.

 

I suppose there is always a shot to "catch lightning in a bottle", as MacP or Lynch mentioned many years ago, so perhaps remotely unlikely is still a lot better than impossible.

 

What I'm getting at is that people read the first statement and mentally jump to teams like the last 2 years, zero hope for the playoffs, and probably looking pretty far up at even getting to .500. The latter has at least the slight implication that the team would be good enough to be just slightly less than 90 wins in the next 2 years(otherwise you probably would've chosen a different number as a benchmark). There's a 15-25 win difference in interpretation, even if you meant similar things.

[craig]

If yhe Cubs sign Bourn and trade Garza, getting Olt in the deal, I think it puts us as a slightly above .500 team. Trading for Upton at that point would put us squarely in contention. Granted, it'd be an awfully busy rest of the offseason and I don't expect all of that to happen. But a lineup of Bourn, Castro, Rizzo, Upton, Soriano, Olt, Schierholtz, and Barney is solid. A rotation of Shark, E-Jax, Feldman, Baker, Wood, and Villanueva is decent and the pen looks fairly solid currently as well. You'd have chips to trade for Price or Felix next offseason and enough financial flexibikity to make a run at Cano as well. I definitely think 2014 is a year we head into it thinking contention.

 

We haven't acquired Price, Upton, Olt, or Bourn yet, so we'd perhaps look more competitive if we do.

 

But as it stands today, I don't see the team much ahead, if at all, of the roster we had last year pre-August.

 

Offense/lineup wise, we're not necessarily any better. Schierholz and Navarro added. April-May Rizzo won't upgrade on April-May LaHair.

 

I like the pitching moves made, but no matter how wise or good-risk those moves have been, we're going to be hard-pressed to approach the Dempster-Maholm-Samardz-Garza-Wood rotation that was so effective during April-July last year. We can improve on Volstad, but Jackson's not going to match Dempster's league-leading 2.12 ERA. So I think we'll be challenged to equal the April-July rotation.

 

So if the lineup isn't obviously improved, and the rotation will be challenged to equal last year's, I don't see why we should be a lot better than the not-good April-July team of last year.

 

The other concern is the depth-injury factor. Rotation-wise, we probably have better depth for injury. (Although Garza and Baker are injury risks; did we have any entering last season?) If we have perfect health, the lineup has a chance to push for .500. But if Castro or Rizzo get hurt, or Castillo struggles, we don't have strong replacements. So while we can look at WAR's and Saber predictions and conclude that "hey, this looks like a .500 team", usually some things go wrong.

[Guest]

If yhe Cubs sign Bourn and trade Garza, getting Olt in the deal, I think it puts us as a slightly above .500 team. Trading for Upton at that point would put us squarely in contention. Granted, it'd be an awfully busy rest of the offseason and I don't expect all of that to happen. But a lineup of Bourn, Castro, Rizzo, Upton, Soriano, Olt, Schierholtz, and Barney is solid. A rotation of Shark, E-Jax, Feldman, Baker, Wood, and Villanueva is decent and the pen looks fairly solid currently as well. You'd have chips to trade for Price or Felix next offseason and enough financial flexibikity to make a run at Cano as well. I definitely think 2014 is a year we head into it thinking contention.

 

We haven't acquired Price, Upton, Olt, or Bourn yet, so we'd perhaps look more competitive if we do.

 

But as it stands today, I don't see the team much ahead, if at all, of the roster we had last year pre-August.

 

Offense/lineup wise, we're not necessarily any better. Schierholz and Navarro added. April-May Rizzo won't upgrade on April-May LaHair.

 

I like the pitching moves made, but no matter how wise or good-risk those moves have been, we're going to be hard-pressed to approach the Dempster-Maholm-Samardz-Garza-Wood rotation that was so effective during April-July last year. We can improve on Volstad, but Jackson's not going to match Dempster's league-leading 2.12 ERA. So I think we'll be challenged to equal the April-July rotation.

 

So if the lineup isn't obviously improved, and the rotation will be challenged to equal last year's, I don't see why we should be a lot better than the not-good April-July team of last year.

 

The other concern is the depth-injury factor. Rotation-wise, we probably have better depth for injury. (Although Garza and Baker are injury risks; did we have any entering last season?) If we have perfect health, the lineup has a chance to push for .500. But if Castro or Rizzo get hurt, or Castillo struggles, we don't have strong replacements. So while we can look at WAR's and Saber predictions and conclude that "hey, this looks like a .500 team", usually some things go wrong.

 

did you know that bullpens exist

[Guest]

If yhe Cubs sign Bourn and trade Garza, getting Olt in the deal, I think it puts us as a slightly above .500 team. Trading for Upton at that point would put us squarely in contention. Granted, it'd be an awfully busy rest of the offseason and I don't expect all of that to happen. But a lineup of Bourn, Castro, Rizzo, Upton, Soriano, Olt, Schierholtz, and Barney is solid. A rotation of Shark, E-Jax, Feldman, Baker, Wood, and Villanueva is decent and the pen looks fairly solid currently as well. You'd have chips to trade for Price or Felix next offseason and enough financial flexibikity to make a run at Cano as well. I definitely think 2014 is a year we head into it thinking contention.

 

We haven't acquired Price, Upton, Olt, or Bourn yet, so we'd perhaps look more competitive if we do.

 

But as it stands today, I don't see the team much ahead, if at all, of the roster we had last year pre-August.

 

Offense/lineup wise, we're not necessarily any better. Schierholz and Navarro added. April-May Rizzo won't upgrade on April-May LaHair.

 

I like the pitching moves made, but no matter how wise or good-risk those moves have been, we're going to be hard-pressed to approach the Dempster-Maholm-Samardz-Garza-Wood rotation that was so effective during April-July last year. We can improve on Volstad, but Jackson's not going to match Dempster's league-leading 2.12 ERA. So I think we'll be challenged to equal the April-July rotation.

 

So if the lineup isn't obviously improved, and the rotation will be challenged to equal last year's, I don't see why we should be a lot better than the not-good April-July team of last year.

 

The other concern is the depth-injury factor. Rotation-wise, we probably have better depth for injury. (Although Garza and Baker are injury risks; did we have any entering last season?) If we have perfect health, the lineup has a chance to push for .500. But if Castro or Rizzo get hurt, or Castillo struggles, we don't have strong replacements. So while we can look at WAR's and Saber predictions and conclude that "hey, this looks like a .500 team", usually some things go wrong.

 

 

Defense and baserunning matter. LaHair was abysmal at both.

Edited December 30, 2012 by David

[Hairyducked Idiot]

If we're going by ERA, Samardzija's improvement over last year should easily match anything we lose from Dempster.

 

And the offense is definitely improved. Healthy catching and a CFer who doesn't completely forget how to hit is a 30-run improvement right off the top.

 

It's not a good offense, but it's a better offense.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

So while we can look at WAR's and Saber predictions and conclude that "hey, this looks like a .500 team", usually some things go wrong.

 

I think it looks like a .500 team *after* you account for these things. With perfect health and nobody busting spontaneously, it's more like 86 wins.

 

It's easy to ignore how awful things have gone for the Cubs the last two years and feel like that's normal. But it's not normal to have as many things go wrong as the Cubs have had the last few seasons.

[jersey cubs fan]

It's easy to ignore how awful things have gone for the Cubs the last two years and feel like that's normal. But it's not normal to have as many things go wrong as the Cubs have had the last few seasons.

 

It's easy to ignore because it's not true. The Cubs didn't have some crazy calamity befall the team. They put an awful product on the field and got awful results. The things that went wrong was the whole trying to be bad thing that made them worse than they would have been if they tried to be good.

[Guest]

It seems that everyone saying the team hasn't improved keep mixing their baselines. They'll use the actual performance of LaHair & Dempster in the first half and then use the expected performance at C & CF.

 

Let's look at our actual performance from the first half:

 

- The bullpen was a disaster of pretty epic proportions

- Volstad's first half was awful

- Garza put up a 4.32 ERA

- Maholm's first half ERA was 4.57

- Shark's first half ERA was 4.71

- It's best we forget about Randy Wells and his four starts

- We had ONE hitter with an OPS above .800 in the first half

- We had 1281 AB's from players with an ops below .700. In the first half.

- We had 455 AB's from players with an OPS below .614. In the first half!

- We had 126 AB's from players with an OPS below .400! These are all excluding the pitchers!

 

This team is greatly improved from what we saw in the first half last year. I'm not sure why this keeps breaking down into a LaHair vs Rizzo conversation.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

It's easy to ignore how awful things have gone for the Cubs the last two years and feel like that's normal. But it's not normal to have as many things go wrong as the Cubs have had the last few seasons.

 

It's easy to ignore because it's not true. The Cubs didn't have some crazy calamity befall the team. They put an awful product on the field and got awful results. The things that went wrong was the whole trying to be bad thing that made them worse than they would have been if they tried to be good.

 

 

It's completely normal for guys like Marlon Byrd and Geovany Soto to simultaneously put up seriously sub-replacement seasons.

[Sammy Sofa]

It's easy to ignore how awful things have gone for the Cubs the last two years and feel like that's normal. But it's not normal to have as many things go wrong as the Cubs have had the last few seasons.

 

It's easy to ignore because it's not true. The Cubs didn't have some crazy calamity befall the team. They put an awful product on the field and got awful results. The things that went wrong was the whole trying to be bad thing that made them worse than they would have been if they tried to be good.

 

This is really, really lazy of you.

[jersey cubs fan]

It's easy to ignore how awful things have gone for the Cubs the last two years and feel like that's normal. But it's not normal to have as many things go wrong as the Cubs have had the last few seasons.

 

It's easy to ignore because it's not true. The Cubs didn't have some crazy calamity befall the team. They put an awful product on the field and got awful results. The things that went wrong was the whole trying to be bad thing that made them worse than they would have been if they tried to be good.

 

 

It's completely normal for guys like Marlon Byrd and Geovany Soto to simultaneously put up seriously sub-replacement seasons.

 

Please, every team has also rans who fail. Marlon Byrd had a brief decent prime, and he was well past it. Soto was a fat catcher who caught fire for a couple years and has been trending down for years. And those are hardly the things that defined the season. It is at least as normal for guys like that to fail as it is for guys like LaHair to thrive and Samardzija to take such huge steps forward, out of nowhere. The Cubs did not suffer from an outlandish amount of misfortune with the exception of having the misfortune of being led by a front office that saw absolutely zero pressure to field a good team.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Please, every team has also rans who fail.

 

You're trying to handwave away the things that have gone wrong by grouping them into this vague "everybody has bad stuff happen" misfortunes, but it's not working.

 

Marlon Byrd had a brief decent prime, and he was well past it. Soto was a fat catcher who caught fire for a couple years and has been trending down for years.

 

None of which explains why two guys who had a .720 OPS the year before suddenly combined for under .600.

 

And those are hardly the things that defined the season. It is at least as normal for guys like that to fail as it is for guys like LaHair to thrive and Samardzija to take such huge steps forward, out of nowhere.

 

The Cubs didn't get much out of either of those players. LaHair had an essentially replacement-level season and Samardzija's improvement was all in peripherals, not in actual runs allowed.

 

The Cubs did not suffer from an outlandish amount of misfortune with the exception of having the misfortune of being led by a front office that saw absolutely zero pressure to field a good team.

 

They suffered both.