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

[jersey cubs fan]

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.

 

Because you're stupidly trying to list them individually to make them sound crazy when every GD team in the game can do the same thing.

[Sammy Sofa]

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.

 

Because you're stupidly trying to list them individually to make them sound crazy

 

What?

 

when every GD team in the game can do the same thing.

 

Who was arguing against that? Of course it CAN happen to anybody.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Because you're stupidly trying to list them individually to make them sound crazy when every GD team in the game can do the same thing.

 

No, they can't. Every team has some bad things happen. The Cubs have had an unusual concentration of them the last two years. Not historically unlucky or anything, they've just come out on the short end of the variation stick a few times.

 

The Cardinals didn't have any such seasons last year. For the rest of the NL Central, the closest similar situations for 2012 I can find is maybe Stubbs, Morgan and Barmes.

 

The Cubs certainly could have been better with better decisions, but the variance has unquestionably (among the sane) not swung their way since probably 2010, maybe 2008.

[Backtobanks]

Because you're stupidly trying to list them individually to make them sound crazy when every GD team in the game can do the same thing.

 

No, they can't. Every team has some bad things happen. The Cubs have had an unusual concentration of them the last two years. Not historically unlucky or anything, they've just come out on the short end of the variation stick a few times.

 

The Cardinals didn't have any such seasons last year. For the rest of the NL Central, the closest similar situations for 2012 I can find is maybe Stubbs, Morgan and Barmes.

 

The Cubs certainly could have been better with better decisions, but the variance has unquestionably (among the sane) not swung their way since probably 2010, maybe 2008.

 

Sometimes your arguments make some sense, but when you say things haven't gone their way since maybe 2008, you do have to wonder about "variation".

[Guest]

Because you're stupidly trying to list them individually to make them sound crazy when every GD team in the game can do the same thing.

 

No, they can't. Every team has some bad things happen. The Cubs have had an unusual concentration of them the last two years. Not historically unlucky or anything, they've just come out on the short end of the variation stick a few times.

 

The Cardinals didn't have any such seasons last year. For the rest of the NL Central, the closest similar situations for 2012 I can find is maybe Stubbs, Morgan and Barmes.

 

The Cubs certainly could have been better with better decisions, but the variance has unquestionably (among the sane) not swung their way since probably 2010, maybe 2008.

 

Sometimes your arguments make some sense, but when you say things haven't gone their way since maybe 2008, you do have to wonder about "variation".

Four coin flips of heads in a row isn't that shocking.

[Backtobanks]

Because you're stupidly trying to list them individually to make them sound crazy when every GD team in the game can do the same thing.

 

No, they can't. Every team has some bad things happen. The Cubs have had an unusual concentration of them the last two years. Not historically unlucky or anything, they've just come out on the short end of the variation stick a few times.

 

The Cardinals didn't have any such seasons last year. For the rest of the NL Central, the closest similar situations for 2012 I can find is maybe Stubbs, Morgan and Barmes.

 

The Cubs certainly could have been better with better decisions, but the variance has unquestionably (among the sane) not swung their way since probably 2010, maybe 2008.

 

Sometimes your arguments make some sense, but when you say things haven't gone their way since maybe 2008, you do have to wonder about "variation".

Four coin flips of heads in a row isn't that shocking.

 

4 heads in a row is a 6% chance. Of course that doesn't figure in 100 years of not winning the WS. LOL

[Guest]

Because you're stupidly trying to list them individually to make them sound crazy when every GD team in the game can do the same thing.

 

No, they can't. Every team has some bad things happen. The Cubs have had an unusual concentration of them the last two years. Not historically unlucky or anything, they've just come out on the short end of the variation stick a few times.

 

The Cardinals didn't have any such seasons last year. For the rest of the NL Central, the closest similar situations for 2012 I can find is maybe Stubbs, Morgan and Barmes.

 

The Cubs certainly could have been better with better decisions, but the variance has unquestionably (among the sane) not swung their way since probably 2010, maybe 2008.

 

Sometimes your arguments make some sense, but when you say things haven't gone their way since maybe 2008, you do have to wonder about "variation".

Four coin flips of heads in a row isn't that shocking.

 

4 heads in a row is a 6% chance. Of course that doesn't figure in 100 years of not winning the WS. LOL

I'm honestly not even sure what you're trying to say any longer. You seem to be implying that Kyle's entire analysis is flawed because he wrote one sentence saying they MAY have been having bad luck since 2008 (four flips ending with worse than average luck). With 30 MLB teams, a 6% chance means there are better than even odds that at least one team is riding such a streak.

 

What you are trying to imply with your last sentence I can't even begin to guess.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

And really, what I said was that we haven't had a *good* luck season since 2010 or 2008. That also leaves room for average luck seasons.

[Backtobanks]

No, they can't. Every team has some bad things happen. The Cubs have had an unusual concentration of them the last two years. Not historically unlucky or anything, they've just come out on the short end of the variation stick a few times.

 

The Cardinals didn't have any such seasons last year. For the rest of the NL Central, the closest similar situations for 2012 I can find is maybe Stubbs, Morgan and Barmes.

 

The Cubs certainly could have been better with better decisions, but the variance has unquestionably (among the sane) not swung their way since probably 2010, maybe 2008.

 

Sometimes your arguments make some sense, but when you say things haven't gone their way since maybe 2008, you do have to wonder about "variation".

Four coin flips of heads in a row isn't that shocking.

 

4 heads in a row is a 6% chance. Of course that doesn't figure in 100 years of not winning the WS. LOL

I'm honestly not even sure what you're trying to say any longer. You seem to be implying that Kyle's entire analysis is flawed because he wrote one sentence saying they MAY have been having bad luck since 2008 (four flips ending with worse than average luck). With 30 MLB teams, a 6% chance means there are better than even odds that at least one team is riding such a streak.

 

What you are trying to imply with your last sentence I can't even begin to guess.

 

Actually I'm agreeing with Kyle about making bad decisions rather than "things not going our way" for the last 4 years. As for the "odds that at least one team is riding such a streak", I'm sure there are many teams' GMs and fans that would use "things not going our way" for the last 4 years as an excuse. I threw in the last sentence (jokingly) as an example of not always trusting chance.

[craig]

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.

 

Thanks, Tim. Helpful, and I guess the "first half" is easy to deal with because that's how the stats sources split.

 

In my head I'd been using April-July as my baseline, because it was at the end of July that Dempster and Maholm went away, and it was the awful post-trade August/September Jackson/Vitters/Berken roster that looked so super awful.

 

But even before the trade deadline, we'd been 16 games under .500 at the end of July. With Dempster (2.25) and Maholm (3.74) in the rotation.

 

Most of our spending this winter has been for starting pitchers: Jackson, Feldman, Villanueva, and Baker. Two of those four will need to replace Dempster and Maholm; the other two plus Wood will compete for the VolstadWood spot. All I'm saying is that even the best of the new guys is not going to come close to matching dempster's league-leading 2.25 ERA, and I doubt the second best of the new guys is going to upgrade Maholm's 3.74. So the big improvement at #5 Volstad/Wood spot is going to be offset substantially by the downgrade at the #1/2 spots.

 

The rotation could improve meaningfully;

a) Garza and Samardz could both pitch better than they did

b) The upgrade at the #5 spot could be huge, much larger than the downgrade at the Dempster/Maholm spots

c) I don't know how to count how many starts had been made by the real junkers through August, but there were a number of Coleman/Germano type starts even before Maholm and Dempster said goodbye. So we could improve a bunch on those starts, too.

 

Still, we were 16 games under at end of July. So most of the improvement is not going to be able to be provided by the new signings. Most will need to come from guys we already had. Whether that be Garza, Wood, Samardz, Marmol, Valbuena, Stewart, Castro, Castillo, Jackson, Soriano, Barney, Rizzo, I don't know.

 

But if we end at .500 this July 31st instead of 16 games under like last year, it's not going to mostly be because the rotation is 16 games better, or that Navaro, Schierholz, and Fuji add 16 wins. Most of the improvement is going to need to come from within, from guys we already have, and it's going to need to come from small-steps improvements from many sources. Rotation perhaps somewhat better; offense perhaps somewhat better; relief perhaps gobs better; defense perhaps a little better; baserunning perhaps a little better.

 

Obviously the rotation signings could boost the bullpen. In the unlikely event that Garza/Baker/Samardz/Jackson/Feldman/Villa/Wood are all healthy two of those seven will pad the bullpen in addition to Fuji. Wood, Fuji, and some other major league pitcher could stabilize the pen a great deal.

[craig]

I don't think we should be shocked if, again, some of the guys we're hoping for end up playing pretty bad, though. Sure, the cliff-fall for Byrd and Soto was pretty extreme. But until Garza got hurt, weren't we actually pretty lucky health-wise? Garza out, stewart of course, and Dempster missed some starts?

 

Stewart, Castillo, Navarro, Barney, Valbuena, any of those kinds of guys could go sub-.600 without it being much of a shock. DeJesus, Soriano, Schierholz, no surprise if any or all of our outfielders were to go sub-.700.

 

When looking at this roster, Garza and Baker are obviously at risk. Will they be healthy? If/when they are pitching, how effective will they be? And certainly any pitcher is a health risk, so if Samardz or Villa or wood show up with a sore arm, hardly a shock. Of the 7 "starters", the odds are probably low than all 7 will ever be healthy at any one time. Which could also reduce how many leftovers are there for the pen.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Replacement level catching and CF makes up about 30 runs of right off the top.

[craig]

Replacement level catching and CF makes up about 30 runs of right off the top.

 

Sure, but sometimes replacement-level spots perform BELOW replacement-level, as was obviously true last year at C and CF. And at present, it looks to me like we've got five such lineup spots.

 

Catcher: Castillo, Navarro, and Clevenger;

3B: Stewart/Valbuena/Vitters;

CF: DeJesus/Jackson/Campana/Sappelt;

RF: Schierholz/DeJesus/Sappelt

2B: Barney.

 

Maybe that's exaggerating hyperbole or overly unappreciative, or DeJesus shouldn't be included. But it seems we're flipping a coin on a bunch of positions to get respectable replacement-level output. With that many coin flips, there's a good chance we'll lose a few and get sub-replacement output.

 

We'll see. I hope you're right, and that we'll be .500 or better when August rolls in. You'll certainly be entitled to give me an "I told you so" if that happens with the present roster.

 

And certainly if, as Dave was hoping, we'll be pulling in Bourn, Upton, and Olt before the year begins, that could also boost the shot at .500+.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Sure, but sometimes replacement-level spots perform BELOW replacement-level, as was obviously true last year at C and CF. And at present, it looks to me like we've got five such lineup spots.

 

Catcher: Castillo, Navarro, and Clevenger;

3B: Stewart/Valbuena/Vitters;

CF: DeJesus/Jackson/Campana/Sappelt;

RF: Schierholz/DeJesus/Sappelt

2B: Barney.

 

Maybe that's exaggerating hyperbole or overly unappreciative, or DeJesus shouldn't be included. But it seems we're flipping a coin on a bunch of positions to get respectable replacement-level output. With that many coin flips, there's a good chance we'll lose a few and get sub-replacement output.

 

DeJesus definitely doesn't belong in there. Neither do the RFers. Heck, neither do the catchers. None of the starting/backup combinations at those positions were even within spitting distance of replacement level last season (even the higher B-R replacement, which is the one I prefer).

 

But even if you have four spots that you think might be replacement level, then the projected *average* of those four spots should be at least replacement level. You should never have playing time that projects to be below replacement level, even if it's likely that some of the player will be below (and some of them should be above).

 

We'll see. I hope you're right, and that we'll be .500 or better when August rolls in. You'll certainly be entitled to give me an "I told you so" if that happens with the present roster.

 

We're a long way from that. I'd say right now, the roster as constructed, if kept intact and holding to average luck, should be on pace for 78-80 wins, and they can boost that up a tiny bit by fixing the backup infield situation.

 

But if they start dumping guys in the spring (Soriano, Marmol, Garza) and hold a few of our best guys down at AAA like they did last year, we could easily be on pace for more like 72-74.

[weis21]

If they add Bourn, Olt, AND Upton, I'm guessing that .500 would be the floor (even acknowledging that Olt may or should not be a world-beater in his rookie season). If they were to add those three I'd expect the Cubs to at least be in the playoff "picture" heading into September.

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Brian]

http://l.yimg.com/iu/api/res/1.2/hs5P3E1hVLqD3EfSd6GxHA--/YXBwaWQ9eXZpZGVvO2NoPTM3ODtjcj0xO2N3PTUxMjtkeD0xO2R5PTE7Zmk9dWxjcm9wO2g9Mzc4O3E9NzA7dz01MTI-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/Sports/ap/201301021551570671405-p2.jpeg

[dew1679666265]

If they add Bourn, Olt, AND Upton, I'm guessing that .500 would be the floor (even acknowledging that Olt may or should not be a world-beater in his rookie season). If they were to add those three I'd expect the Cubs to at least be in the playoff "picture" heading into September.

 

If we add all three of them then Theo will have proven to us all how amazing he is and why none of us should have ever doubted him.

[Brian]

On Dec. 14, the Cubs coincidentally delivered their pitch to both free agents at the exact same time. Cubs chairman Tom Ricketts and team president Theo Epstein met with Sanchez in Miami. General manager Jed Hoyer and manager Dale Sveum met with Jackson in Newport Beach, Calif.

 

The B team won, looks like Hoyer/Sveum is the true dream team. Also the leaks must be related to Ricketts or Epstein's camp... I say we blame UMFan's neighbor.

[Cubswin11]

On Dec. 14, the Cubs coincidentally delivered their pitch to both free agents at the exact same time. Cubs chairman Tom Ricketts and team president Theo Epstein met with Sanchez in Miami. General manager Jed Hoyer and manager Dale Sveum met with Jackson in Newport Beach, Calif.

 

The B team won, looks like Hoyer/Sveum is the true dream team. Also the leaks must be related to Ricketts or Epstein's camp... I say we blame UMFan's neighbor.

Wasn't it Sanchez's agent who was leaking it?

[bukie]

It would appear as if both this deal and the Villanueva deal are finalized, but last I knew the roster was at 39, and I'm not sure who may have been dropped to accommodate the two players.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

It would appear as if both this deal and the Villanueva deal are finalized, but last I knew the roster was at 39, and I'm not sure who may have been dropped to accommodate the two players.

 

I think being super technical, you have 20 days after the contracts are signed to file them with the league office.

[jersey cubs fan]

It would appear as if both this deal and the Villanueva deal are finalized, but last I knew the roster was at 39, and I'm not sure who may have been dropped to accommodate the two players.

 

Jackson is already listed on the 40 man but Villanueva is not, and it's at 40.

[toonsterwu]

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.

 

Leaving aside the fact that I really don't see that busy of an offseason (and a Garza deal wouldn't happen until Spring anyways, in all likelihood, and that's probably as early as it could happens), you feel comfortable that that rotation can lead us to slightly above .500 with that lineup? I think that team would be much improved, but Edwin Jackson can still go through spells of inconsistency where he looks more like a 4/5 starter (take a look at his numbers last year), and Feldman/Baker/Wood/Villanueva/etceteras all look like end of the rotation options. I guess, let me rephrase - I wouldn't rule out such a thing happening, but that seems to be asking for this rotation to over-achieve. Nothing's impossible, and career years happen, but if that lineup, with that rotation, got us near .500, I'd be pleased.

 

Couple side points -

 

1. An Upton trade would likely eat into a lot of resources. At the very least, it would almost certainly take Javier Baez. To assume that we would definitely have enough pieces to make a Price or Felix trade next offseason after an Upton move now? Not impossible, but that really depends on a lot of success stories with our top prospects this year. We're a much improved system, but I'm not sure, as of now, we can say we are a good enough system to definitely make two mega deals in back to back offseasons without a lot of luck in the development side of things.

 

2. Actually, I was sniffing around for a Cano post. I see this popping up everywhere these days - Cubs making a run at Cano. I'd love it ... but I really don't see any way the Yankees let Cano go. The talk has always been that Cano really loves being in New York. For any unhappiness he may express, it's well-acknowledged that, while Jeter is the face of the team, Cano is the alpha dog, the anchor that makes things go. For all the talk about the Yankees cutting their payroll, I think they will do everything possible to find room for Cano. I really don't see Cano getting to free agency, and wouldn't be surprised if the Yankees locked him up before this upcoming season.

[davell]

Toonster, I agree that's a lot going on for this time of year. Very likely too much. That said, I think adding Bourn alone puts us around .500 on paper. Personally, I think the Garza/Olt scenario is a wash, due to the solidish replacement we'd have for Garza and the total blackhole that Olt would be replacing. Adding Upton would likely put us around 85 wins? My guess anyway. At any rate, plenty of variance to be in contention. Having the pieces to trade for both Upton and Price? Won't be easy obviously. Progression from the farm is needed, but also expected. But I see your point. And if either, or both, require top end pitching, we'd have to get really creative. Cano? I'm much more worried about him being a Dodger next year, than a Yankee myself. But in a scenario where we've added Upton and Price already(early offseason trade for Price), I think we'd be on even ground as far as favorable destinations go.