Cubs sign Jose Veras

[Rob]

There are quite a few talented arms who could spend time in the bullpen this year and emerge as legitimate late innings guys (i.e. Not James Russell)

 

Veras

Fujikawa

Strop

Parker

Vizcaino

Cabrera

Arrieta

Villanueva

Rondon

Wright*

Rosscup*

 

Not bad.

 

I still think Justin Grimm can factor into that bullpen.

 

I like him better as a starter, but to be honest there's enough of these guys that I forgot all about him.

[SouthSideRyan]

Out of curiosity, a few years ago the prevailing thought seemed to be that relievers are inconsistent year to year and it wasn't the best use of resources on the FA market. Now it seems to be applauded. Was there a change in philosophy or was the Cubs bullpen so bad the last few years that this is now a prudent way to improve the club?

I do think this 4M with incentives and 5.5 option is a lot. Someone like Wright at a little over a million is a pretty low risk.

 

I'm not totally put off by it, but hopefully there is still some money left for elsewhere, like Tanaka and other bat.

 

The projected payroll is a shade less than 80M right now.

[WrigleyField 22]

Out of curiosity, a few years ago the prevailing thought seemed to be that relievers are inconsistent year to year and it wasn't the best use of resources on the FA market. Now it seems to be applauded. Was there a change in philosophy or was the Cubs bullpen so bad the last few years that this is now a prudent way to improve the club?

I do think this 4M with incentives and 5.5 option is a lot. Someone like Wright at a little over a million is a pretty low risk.

 

I'm not totally put off by it, but hopefully there is still some money left for elsewhere, like Tanaka and other bat.

 

The projected payroll is a shade less than 80M right now.

Oh I'm not totally concerned about having the money available for Tanaka, but if the miss on Tanaka, wonder what else they'd go spend on, especially since that may drag late into the offseason.

[SouthSideRyan]

Out of curiosity, a few years ago the prevailing thought seemed to be that relievers are inconsistent year to year and it wasn't the best use of resources on the FA market. Now it seems to be applauded. Was there a change in philosophy or was the Cubs bullpen so bad the last few years that this is now a prudent way to improve the club?

I do think this 4M with incentives and 5.5 option is a lot. Someone like Wright at a little over a million is a pretty low risk.

 

I'm not totally put off by it, but hopefully there is still some money left for elsewhere, like Tanaka and other bat.

 

The projected payroll is a shade less than 80M right now.

Oh I'm not totally concerned about having the money available for Tanaka, but if the miss on Tanaka, wonder what else they'd go spend on, especially since that may drag late into the offseason.

 

They wouldn't unless a Santana or Choo winds up getting Bourned down to a cheap deal

[Post Count Padder]

There are quite a few talented arms who could spend time in the bullpen this year and emerge as legitimate late innings guys (i.e. Not James Russell)

 

Veras

Fujikawa

Strop

Parker

Vizcaino

Cabrera

Arrieta

Villanueva

Rondon

Wright*

Rosscup*

 

Not bad.

Is Lim in there or is he gone?

[davell]

Lim is gone. Personally, I am really high on Grimm coming out of the pen. But with all this depth, my guess is we'll give him one more year as a SP, likely at Iowa to start with.

[RammyFanny]

Reading some guy on Schuster's Facebook status...

Too funny, the day after they add 0-4 Wright to their roster, they add on 0-5 Veras....so now they have two new additions who had a combined 0-9 record last season. Onward, as they say.

John, I see your point, and guys with 4-5 marks or 5-8 I understand. But geez, 0-4 and 0-5? Come on, even a blind squirrel finds that acorn once in a while. And sometimes those bad marks by middle relievers mean that maybe you gave away a lead.....just saying.

Losers are losers, period. After awhile, some guys just accept losing. Get me players from winning organizations, as Dallas Green once said when someone complained why the Cubs were becoming Philadelphia West. Big D replied, "well that club won the World Series in 1980 and were in the playoff in 1981...those are players you want. They know HOW to win."

Stupid to even try to reason with these people obviously, but it doesn't make me want to punch a wall any less.

[Cubfanintheknow]

Out of curiosity, a few years ago the prevailing thought seemed to be that relievers are inconsistent year to year and it wasn't the best use of resources on the FA market. Now it seems to be applauded. Was there a change in philosophy or was the Cubs bullpen so bad the last few years that this is now a prudent way to improve the club?

 

One year at $4 million isn't what ticked people off. It was the three year, $10 million contracts that Jim Hendry was so fond of handing out to relievers. Bobby Howry and Scott Eyre come to mind. I'm sure there are others.

[NOLA]

Latroy effing Hawkins. It was 3 years, $11mm.

[XZero771679666304]

Latroy effing Hawkins. It was 3 years, $11mm.

 

I have no problem with Hawkins, my problem was always with how Baker used him. He had proven he couldn't close, and he wasn't signed to be a closer. Hawkins' problems closing games in 2004 was a function of Baker's bad managing.

 

When I think of the bad contracts Hendry gave to relievers, I think of Eyre and Howry, though they didn't really go bad until their third years. But that just serves to illustrate the risk in giving more than a year or two to relievers. Hawkins was never really terrible (or even bad, statistically), and he was gone after a year and a half.

[KingCubsFan]

There's no problem in giving really good relievers multiyear deals. The problem with guys like Eyre and Howry was that they were perceived as overrated and easily replaceable when they signed. Howry was coming off a season in which he had a horrible K rate, and Eyre didn't really have a track record of success.

[JeffH]

When I think of the bad contracts Hendry gave to relievers, I think of Eyre and Howry, though they didn't really go bad until their third years.

 

John F. Grabow. End of discussion.

[XZero771679666304]

When I think of the bad contracts Hendry gave to relievers, I think of Eyre and Howry, though they didn't really go bad until their third years.

 

John F. Grabow. End of discussion.

 

D'oh, forgot the worst one.

[North]

Awesome signing. I'm surprised Veras didn't at least get two years.

 

The Cubs have pulled together a lot of pitchers capable of swing and misses. I like swing and misses. It doesn't allow runners to move on the bases. You'll get a lot of stranded runners this way. I much rather have a pitcher who suffers from a slightly worse FIP, but higher swing and miss potential. FIP in small samples isn't as indicative as one would think.

[TruffleShuffle]

There's no problem in giving really good relievers multiyear deals. The problem with guys like Eyre and Howry was that they were perceived as overrated and easily replaceable when they signed. Howry was coming off a season in which he had a horrible K rate, and Eyre didn't really have a track record of success.

 

howry had two very solid seasons before he turned into an old man and sucked. eyre had a career 1.5 whip when the cubs signed him; his 2005 season was just an extreme outlier. grabow also was lousy and had poor command. i always thought the whole "never sign relievers, they're unreliable" thing was bull [expletive] because there are some relievers who are good year to year. the issue is looking at moronic stuff like ERA when signing a reliever. if you want to bring in marginal pitchers like grabow or eyre, fine, but do it on a single year contract or one with an option year, not on a 3 year deal. that's what they did with shawn camp after a solid year and he turned into a pumpkin. you don't give guys like that multi-year deals.

[ctcf]

Reading some guy on Schuster's Facebook status...

Too funny, the day after they add 0-4 Wright to their roster, they add on 0-5 Veras....so now they have two new additions who had a combined 0-9 record last season. Onward, as they say.

John, I see your point, and guys with 4-5 marks or 5-8 I understand. But geez, 0-4 and 0-5? Come on, even a blind squirrel finds that acorn once in a while. And sometimes those bad marks by middle relievers mean that maybe you gave away a lead.....just saying.

Losers are losers, period. After awhile, some guys just accept losing. Get me players from winning organizations, as Dallas Green once said when someone complained why the Cubs were becoming Philadelphia West. Big D replied, "well that club won the World Series in 1980 and were in the playoff in 1981...those are players you want. They know HOW to win."

Stupid to even try to reason with these people obviously, but it doesn't make me want to punch a wall any less.

 

wow

 

I feel like relying on RELIEVER W-L records is somehow more egregiously, forcefully stupid than relying on those of starters.

[CubsWin]

Out of curiosity, a few years ago the prevailing thought seemed to be that relievers are inconsistent year to year and it wasn't the best use of resources on the FA market. Now it seems to be applauded. Was there a change in philosophy or was the Cubs bullpen so bad the last few years that this is now a prudent way to improve the club?

I don't think that's changed. It wasn't necessarily spending money on relievers as much as it was giving them multi-year deals at millions per year.

 

The ideal, of course, is to have your organization produce most, if not all, of your bullpen. The market reality is that if your organization can't do that, you're going to have to trade for or sign somebody to fill those gaps to give you the necessary depth to succeed. Depth is the key. Because most relief pitchers, not all, are inconsistent from year to year, teams must have minor league depth to cover themselves. The Cubs have done a good job of that since Theo & Co. came aboard in my opinion.

[jersey cubs fan]

. i always thought the whole "never sign relievers, they're unreliable" thing was bull [expletive] because there are some relievers who are good year to year.

 

There are a handful of consistently solid relievers, but most of those become overpaid "closers".

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I think the "relievers are inconsistent" thing is overblown a bit. If you look at peripherals and not just ERA, they aren't *that* inconsistent. Feels like the sabersavvy fans' bias against them came out of the era when ERA+ was the best tool we had for pitchers.

[Guest]

I think the "relievers are inconsistent" thing is overblown a bit. If you look at peripherals and not just ERA, they aren't *that* inconsistent. Feels like the sabersavvy fans' bias against them came out of the era when ERA+ was the best tool we had for pitchers.

You were into ERA+ before it was cool