2014 Roster Discussion

[davell]

By the time whichever of our youngsters are in arb or have signed early long term deals, our payroll had BETTER not be an issue. If we're not capable of carrying payrolls near, at, or possibly even over the luxury tax post renovations and new TV deal- Ricketts will be the most hated man in Chicago.

[burnt out cubbie fan]

I love the discussion over the last week.

 

There is one more issue that needs to be in the mix. Payroll. Young players (when they offer value) have escalating costs. If you anticipate that you may have a lot of them, you better have a low payroll when they reach the majors. Keeping more than a hand full a year can easily cost . . .5, 7, 10 million a year! in extra payroll.

 

I have to back away from something I posted. I assumed Baez would start in AA and would be a September call up.

This is the case for any player outside of pre-arbitration players. Higher value = more expensive...not sure what is needed to be discussed there. Also not sure why this would be an issue when they reach the majors, 3 years down the line yes but they are locked in for the first 3 years.

[SouthSideRyan]

I love the discussion over the last week.

 

There is one more issue that needs to be in the mix. Payroll. Young players (when they offer value) have escalating costs. If you anticipate that you may have a lot of them, you better have a low payroll when they reach the majors. Keeping more than a hand full a year can easily cost . . .5, 7, 10 million a year! in extra payroll.

 

I have to back away from something I posted. I assumed Baez would start in AA and would be a September call up.

This is the case for any player outside of pre-arbitration players. Higher value = more expensive...not sure what is needed to be discussed there. Also not sure why this would be an issue when they reach the majors, 3 years down the line yes but they are locked in for the first 3 years.

 

4-5 years down the line. 1st year arb guys don't make [expletive].

[SouthSideRyan]

I love the discussion over the last week.

 

There is one more issue that needs to be in the mix. Payroll. Young players (when they offer value) have escalating costs. If you anticipate that you may have a lot of them, you better have a low payroll when they reach the majors. Keeping more than a hand full a year can easily cost . . .5, 7, 10 million a year! in extra payroll.

 

I have to back away from something I posted. I assumed Baez would start in AA and would be a September call up.

I don't think it's necessary to have a low or lowish payroll when building with youth. You just need flexibility, i.e. shorter term contracts for veterans. That way when talent from the minors shows that it's ready to come up, they're not blocked long term by a vet whose contract will be difficult to move. You can still maintain a $100 million payroll and build from within so long as you don't have too many long term high priced veterans on the books.

 

Just because a guy is a veteran doesn't mean his contract will be difficult to move.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I still just can't believe that we'll be all that aggressive in the offseason.

 

There's just too many things working against it:

 

1) The FA class sucks. Really bad.

2) The very few major FAs we might be interested in, we're likely to be blown out of the water by teams with a lot more toe spend.

3) There's still the possibility of the renovations eating into our budget.

4) I'm a big fan of going for it every year, but if you aren't, then it's hard to say 2014 looks like a year to do it. The disappointing seasons of our three most important MLB players puts a huge cloud over any 2014 projection.

5) It finally is time to start thinking about not blocking some of the top prospects.

6) Unlike last year, when we had a ton of playing time to give out and nobody interesting to give it to (making us an ideal landing spot for guys like Feldman, Villanueva, or Schierholtz), going into next year we are pretty loaded with guys who need to have MLB playing time to make use of their value: Arrieta, Lake, Grimm, Cabrera, Rusin, maybe Olt, in addition to the leftovers from last year's deals (Schierholtz, Villanueva).

7) You can keep your eye out for major trade possibilities, but those are extremely hard to pull off and not something you can count on as a plan for the offseason.

 

If we don't have the money to buy our way into the few premium talents that are out there, then as much as I absolutely hate it, it probably makes sense to just run out what you have next year and place your hopes in player development. There's enough talent on the 40-man that if you squint really hard, you can sort of buy into the possibility of there being something there.

[Beer Kaese]

I still just can't believe that we'll be all that aggressive in the offseason.

 

There's just too many things working against it:

 

1) The FA class sucks. Really bad.

2) The very few major FAs we might be interested in, we're likely to be blown out of the water by teams with a lot more toe spend.

3) There's still the possibility of the renovations eating into our budget.

4) I'm a big fan of going for it every year, but if you aren't, then it's hard to say 2014 looks like a year to do it. The disappointing seasons of our three most important MLB players puts a huge cloud over any 2014 projection.

5) It finally is time to start thinking about not blocking some of the top prospects.

6) Unlike last year, when we had a ton of playing time to give out and nobody interesting to give it to (making us an ideal landing spot for guys like Feldman, Villanueva, or Schierholtz), going into next year we are pretty loaded with guys who need to have MLB playing time to make use of their value: Arrieta, Lake, Grimm, Cabrera, Rusin, maybe Olt, in addition to the leftovers from last year's deals (Schierholtz, Villanueva).

7) You can keep your eye out for major trade possibilities, but those are extremely hard to pull off and not something you can count on as a plan for the offseason.

 

If we don't have the money to buy our way into the few premium talents that are out there, then as much as I absolutely hate it, it probably makes sense to just run out what you have next year and place your hopes in player development. There's enough talent on the 40-man that if you squint really hard, you can sort of buy into the possibility of there being something there.

 

Your pessimism is going to look stupid a year from now.

[Guest]

I still just can't believe that we'll be all that aggressive in the offseason.

 

There's just too many things working against it:

 

1) The FA class sucks. Really bad.

2) The very few major FAs we might be interested in, we're likely to be blown out of the water by teams with a lot more toe spend.

3) There's still the possibility of the renovations eating into our budget.

4) I'm a big fan of going for it every year, but if you aren't, then it's hard to say 2014 looks like a year to do it. The disappointing seasons of our three most important MLB players puts a huge cloud over any 2014 projection.

5) It finally is time to start thinking about not blocking some of the top prospects.

6) Unlike last year, when we had a ton of playing time to give out and nobody interesting to give it to (making us an ideal landing spot for guys like Feldman, Villanueva, or Schierholtz), going into next year we are pretty loaded with guys who need to have MLB playing time to make use of their value: Arrieta, Lake, Grimm, Cabrera, Rusin, maybe Olt, in addition to the leftovers from last year's deals (Schierholtz, Villanueva).

7) You can keep your eye out for major trade possibilities, but those are extremely hard to pull off and not something you can count on as a plan for the offseason.

 

If we don't have the money to buy our way into the few premium talents that are out there, then as much as I absolutely hate it, it probably makes sense to just run out what you have next year and place your hopes in player development. There's enough talent on the 40-man that if you squint really hard, you can sort of buy into the possibility of there being something there.

 

You told me blocking wasnt a real thing, no fair.

 

But I mostly agree with this.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

You told me blocking wasnt a real thing, no fair.

 

I changed my mind.

[Beer Kaese]

You told me blocking wasnt a real thing, no fair.

 

I changed my mind.

 

This is why my post count is low. I'd see a post like this and leave for a few months.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

This is why my post count is low. I'd see a post like this and leave for a few months.

 

Your reverse e-peen over your post count is a little weird.

[Little Slide Rooter]

1B Rizzo

2B Kelly Johnson

SS Castro

3B Olt (sink or swim move)

OF: Some combination of Lake/Jackson(sink or swim)/Vitters (sink or swim)/Cory Hart (incentive heavy deal) Sweeney or some variation.

 

Schierholtz traded

 

C Castillo

Utility: Barney, something resembling Donnie Murphy or Brent Lillibridge

A backup catcher

 

SP Shark

SP Jackson

SP Arrieta

SP Villanueva

SP Grimm/Cabrera

 

Wood traded, though if it becomes apparent that a Shark extension isn't happening, we could keep Wood and trade him.

 

Pen

Some mix of:

Grimm/Cabrera

Vizcaino if healthy

Strop

Lim

Rosscup

Parker

Fujikawa

Bard

 

Trade Russell

[Guest]

So we're trading Schierholtz, Wood, and Russell, but not for any players that figure to crack the MLB roster. Also I think the Opening Day payroll of that team may be under 70 million.

[Tangled Up in Plaid]

Damn, I thought he left.

[Cubswin11]

So we're trading Schierholtz, Wood, and Russell, but not for any players that figure to crack the MLB roster. Also I think the Opening Day payroll of that team may be under 70 million.

And we'd be looking at another 90+ loss team

[davell]

Rizzo, Castillo, E-Jax, and Wood are the only 4 guys I think are definitely back next year. No, I don't think Starlin is getting dealt, but I could at least envision it happening in a Stanton type megadeal. Guys like Russell, Shark, Schierholtz, and Barney? I can definitely see 1 or 2 of that group getting moved-but figure we'll be looking for major league talent back instead of more minor leaguers. Assuming payroll stays put though, I'm not sure we trade any of that group even. Realistically, I don't expect a ton of turnover this year.

[Guest]

Rizzo, Castillo, E-Jax, and Wood are the only 4 guys I think are definitely back next year. No, I don't think Starlin is getting dealt, but I could at least envision it happening in a Stanton type megadeal. Guys like Russell, Shark, Schierholtz, and Barney? I can definitely see 1 or 2 of that group getting moved-but figure we'll be looking for major league talent back instead of more minor leaguers. Assuming payroll stays put though, I'm not sure we trade any of that group even. Realistically, I don't expect a ton of turnover this year.

Wood over-performed his perceived value this year. Shark underperformed his perceived value this year.

 

Given this FO, I'd think Wood would be more likely to be traded.

[davell]

I'm basing Wood off the CubsDen guys mentioning he's been looking at a 5 year extension.

[chiclothe]

If 1 or 2 FA relievers are signed, that could be it.

[SouthSideRyan]

So we're trading Schierholtz, Wood, and Russell, but not for any players that figure to crack the MLB roster. Also I think the Opening Day payroll of that team may be under 70 million.

 

I guess Ricketts could raise ticket prices to cover that expenditure

 

#hespoor

[Post Count Padder]

I feel like it flew under the radar, but Rondon didn't allow a run in 9 innings in September and from July 24 until the end of the season, he had a 2.28 ERA.

 

We have a lot of interesting bullpen arms next year. Could actually be a strength with the depth we have lined up there.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I feel like it flew under the radar, but Rondon didn't allow a run in 9 innings in September and from July 24 until the end of the season, he had a 2.28 ERA.

 

We have a lot of interesting bullpen arms next year. Could actually be a strength with the depth we have lined up there.

 

Rondon's velocity was up, too.

 

There wasn't any one flashy thing that happened (maybe acquiring Edwards), but the organization had a really amazing year developing young pithcing.

[Little Slide Rooter]

So we're trading Schierholtz, Wood, and Russell, but not for any players that figure to crack the MLB roster. Also I think the Opening Day payroll of that team may be under 70 million.

 

Teams would certainly be willing to give up big league ready talent for those guys, but not the type Epstein would be looking for. I see Epstein prefering to take high ceiling prospects. If he wanted productive, young, big league talent, he'd simply hang on to them. As is, we have several high level prospects whom I think they'll play sink or swim with rather than search too hard for big league level replacements, unless we're talking reclamations or inexpensive "veteran presence."

 

And yes, the payroll would be a low one, as would the W column. I don't want to use the T word, but my hunch is that 2014 will be another one of those seasons where more enjoyment will come out of minor league box score than the big league field.

[davell]

I feel like it flew under the radar, but Rondon didn't allow a run in 9 innings in September and from July 24 until the end of the season, he had a 2.28 ERA.

 

We have a lot of interesting bullpen arms next year. Could actually be a strength with the depth we have lined up there.

 

Rondon's velocity was up, too.

 

There wasn't any one flashy thing that happened (maybe acquiring Edwards), but the organization had a really amazing year developing young pithcing.

The Johnston Effect is very real.

[Guest]

So we're trading Schierholtz, Wood, and Russell, but not for any players that figure to crack the MLB roster. Also I think the Opening Day payroll of that team may be under 70 million.

 

Teams would certainly be willing to give up big league ready talent for those guys, but not the type Epstein would be looking for. I see Epstein prefering to take high ceiling prospects. If he wanted productive, young, big league talent, he'd simply hang on to them. As is, we have several high level prospects whom I think they'll play sink or swim with rather than search too hard for big league level replacements, unless we're talking reclamations or inexpensive "veteran presence."

 

And yes, the payroll would be a low one, as would the W column. I don't want to use the T word, but my hunch is that 2014 will be another one of those seasons where more enjoyment will come out of minor league box score than the big league field.

 

Okay, so you've made the big league team demonstrably worse, and cut the payroll well below even what pessimists think it will be next year.

 

Why? How does that get to be the most logical or best outcome? Unless you think the payroll won't go above 75 million for the next 5 years it doesn't make any sense.

[Sammy Sofa]

So we're trading Schierholtz, Wood, and Russell, but not for any players that figure to crack the MLB roster. Also I think the Opening Day payroll of that team may be under 70 million.

 

Teams would certainly be willing to give up big league ready talent for those guys, but not the type Epstein would be looking for. I see Epstein prefering to take high ceiling prospects. If he wanted productive, young, big league talent, he'd simply hang on to them. As is, we have several high level prospects whom I think they'll play sink or swim with rather than search too hard for big league level replacements, unless we're talking reclamations or inexpensive "veteran presence."

 

Wait, so you ARE saying you left them off of your lineup because you think they'll be traded? Because this just makes it sound like you forgot about them and completely missed that TT was pointing it out, not suggesting that HE thinks they should or will be moved.