Rosenthal: Cubs most likely team to land Lester

[seanimal]

Question for the [expletive] pitching crowd: I get the fact it's easier to project hitters moving forward. I'm on board with drafting hitters early for sure. But I can't see us loving our odds heading into a playoff series getting ready to face Kershaw and Greinke or other groupings like that. Do you guys actually want us to just keep signing each years versions of the next Hammel/Feldman type and never spend big money on pitching? I kind of get not trading for pitching too, but with the large amount of hitters we have coming up, I honestly DO think we'll have an excess to deal from there. And with everyone being young and cheap, I can't even see how we use our payroll, if we DON'T spend on pitching. This isn't meant to turn into a Stanton debate either. One, because I honestly don't think we need him myself and two, because even if we DID deal for him, we'd still have plenty of payroll room anyway.

 

When we've got 8 awesome hitters in the lineup and lots of budget room, then we might as well go big on a pitcher because what else are we going to spend it on?

 

But don't believe for a second that pitching matchup in the postseason is some big deal. Didn't we just see Kershaw get plonked around pretty hard last year?

 

yeah, the pitching in the playoffs axiom is really a lot of your old friend, confirmation bias. you assemble the best team possible to win as many games as possible. playoff games are just like regular season games, so you shouldn't necessarily be thinking about "well sure we'll win 100 games but we better go out and get an ace cause what if kershaw?"

 

i will say that the "there's limits to how many years i'll go" limit on a FA pitcher is not necessarily a realistic expectation. would you rather just not assemble the best team possible so you can revel in the satisfaction that you saved on that 5th or 6th year? that doesn't make sense. the market isn't set by principles, it's set by supply and demand. if you want to acquire some of the available supply, you need to do so within the bounds of the market. you're going to give more money and commit to more years than you would want to in a perfect situation

[Guest]

Question for the [expletive] pitching crowd: I get the fact it's easier to project hitters moving forward. I'm on board with drafting hitters early for sure. But I can't see us loving our odds heading into a playoff series getting ready to face Kershaw and Greinke or other groupings like that. Do you guys actually want us to just keep signing each years versions of the next Hammel/Feldman type and never spend big money on pitching? I kind of get not trading for pitching too, but with the large amount of hitters we have coming up, I honestly DO think we'll have an excess to deal from there. And with everyone being young and cheap, I can't even see how we use our payroll, if we DON'T spend on pitching. This isn't meant to turn into a Stanton debate either. One, because I honestly don't think we need him myself and two, because even if we DID deal for him, we'd still have plenty of payroll room anyway.

 

Until the Cubs have significantly higher payroll than they do now, I'm not a big fan of adding high end free agent pitchers because of their combo of age/cost/likely performance. I'm not going to furious if Jon Lester is a Cub, but I don't think it's a particularly great idea.

 

That said, there's a big gap between signing Jon Lester and perpetually adding Hammel/Feldman. We're reaching a point where trading a young hitter could be valuable, as could packaging them with our current glut of not-quite-good but-definitely-have-promise starters. Bottom line, I'm not against using resources on pitching, if they do something like trade Alcantara for Kluber or sign Maeda I'm not philosophically opposed. It's in spending big dollars on guys who are high risks of decline/collapse due to age that bothers me until the capacity to spend increases.

[jersey cubs fan]

Question for the [expletive] pitching crowd: I get the fact it's easier to project hitters moving forward. I'm on board with drafting hitters early for sure. But I can't see us loving our odds heading into a playoff series getting ready to face Kershaw and Greinke or other groupings like that. Do you guys actually want us to just keep signing each years versions of the next Hammel/Feldman type and never spend big money on pitching? I kind of get not trading for pitching too, but with the large amount of hitters we have coming up, I honestly DO think we'll have an excess to deal from there. And with everyone being young and cheap, I can't even see how we use our payroll, if we DON'T spend on pitching. This isn't meant to turn into a Stanton debate either. One, because I honestly don't think we need him myself and two, because even if we DID deal for him, we'd still have plenty of payroll room anyway.

 

Until the Cubs have significantly higher payroll than they do now, I'm not a big fan of adding high end free agent pitchers because of their combo of age/cost/likely performance. I'm not going to furious if Jon Lester is a Cub, but I don't think it's a particularly great idea.

 

That's just a chicken/egg or catch-22 situation.

 

If they actually do go after him, it will be because they can afford it and it is a great idea.

[SouthSideRyan]

Question for the [expletive] pitching crowd: I get the fact it's easier to project hitters moving forward. I'm on board with drafting hitters early for sure. But I can't see us loving our odds heading into a playoff series getting ready to face Kershaw and Greinke or other groupings like that. Do you guys actually want us to just keep signing each years versions of the next Hammel/Feldman type and never spend big money on pitching? I kind of get not trading for pitching too, but with the large amount of hitters we have coming up, I honestly DO think we'll have an excess to deal from there. And with everyone being young and cheap, I can't even see how we use our payroll, if we DON'T spend on pitching. This isn't meant to turn into a Stanton debate either. One, because I honestly don't think we need him myself and two, because even if we DID deal for him, we'd still have plenty of payroll room anyway.

I think several people here, including the [expletive] pitching crowd, are on board with spending money on pitching this off-season. The idea isn't to never spend money on pitching, it's not to spend dumb money on pitching (like signing over-30 guys to extreme long-term, high-$ deals).

 

So the idea is to never sign really good pitching.

[SouthSideRyan]

I'm just kind of in awe about how on board so many people seem to be with an 80M payroll next year because they're terrified of having dead money when we should have it coming out our butts

[Guest]

yeah

 

i'm as [expletive] pitching about anyone

 

and even though it naturally gives me some pause, i want them to hand out a big contract to a pitcher. i want them to for what it represents and because that means they are adding a TOR pitcher.

 

and because they have to spend the money on something. they can afford to be inefficient as hell on a couple of rotation spots with all the efficiency the'll have everywhere else.

[jersey cubs fan]

yeah

 

i'm as [expletive] pitching about anyone

 

and even though it naturally gives me some pause, i want them to hand out a big contract to a pitcher. i want them to for what it represents and because that means they are adding a TOR pitcher.

 

and because they have to spend the money on something. they can afford to be inefficient as hell on a couple of rotation spots with all the efficiency the'll have everywhere else.

 

Half the point of stockpiling all the young cheap bats is so they can risk that money. Anybody viewing a big contract to a pitcher as anything but awesome is crazypants.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

We've got at least seven position starters in place for 2015 right now, and that's not including Valbuena or a Coghlan/Ruggiano platoon.

 

I count 18 pitchers who are at least acceptable candidates for some role on the depth chart.

 

We might as well go after big TOR pitching because what else are we going to go after? If it craps out, oh well.

[weis21]

Yep. Plus, hasn't Theo basically been on record of saying that when the time comes they're fine with being "inefficient" (to a degree) in signing big FA? It's the nature of free agency and they've built the supporting cast to the point that it now "makes sense" given The Plan to start adding those pieces. Even if it's not the most efficient way to spend as possible, it's necessary.

[Guest]

yeah

 

i'm as [expletive] pitching about anyone

 

and even though it naturally gives me some pause, i want them to hand out a big contract to a pitcher. i want them to for what it represents and because that means they are adding a TOR pitcher.

 

and because they have to spend the money on something. they can afford to be inefficient as hell on a couple of rotation spots with all the efficiency the'll have everywhere else.

 

Half the point of stockpiling all the young cheap bats is so they can risk that money. Anybody viewing a big contract to a pitcher as anything but awesome is crazypants.

 

totally

[Guest]

Castillo + Lester, ftw.

 

 

 

that's "for the wins" in this case.

[Guest]

Question for the [expletive] pitching crowd: I get the fact it's easier to project hitters moving forward. I'm on board with drafting hitters early for sure. But I can't see us loving our odds heading into a playoff series getting ready to face Kershaw and Greinke or other groupings like that. Do you guys actually want us to just keep signing each years versions of the next Hammel/Feldman type and never spend big money on pitching? I kind of get not trading for pitching too, but with the large amount of hitters we have coming up, I honestly DO think we'll have an excess to deal from there. And with everyone being young and cheap, I can't even see how we use our payroll, if we DON'T spend on pitching. This isn't meant to turn into a Stanton debate either. One, because I honestly don't think we need him myself and two, because even if we DID deal for him, we'd still have plenty of payroll room anyway.

 

Until the Cubs have significantly higher payroll than they do now, I'm not a big fan of adding high end free agent pitchers because of their combo of age/cost/likely performance. I'm not going to furious if Jon Lester is a Cub, but I don't think it's a particularly great idea.

 

That's just a chicken/egg or catch-22 situation.

 

If they actually do go after him, it will be because they can afford it and it is a great idea.

 

Not exactly. The Cubs can absolutely afford Lester this offseason. If the payroll is going to remain 100 million for half his contract or longer, having up to a quarter of the payroll tied up in paying for Lester's decline is not a super idea. If they're assured that we'll be at Hendry-era payrolls by then , that's not as much of a concern. At that point then it's the general dollars v. performance/age argument to know if they're the best option.

[SouthSideRyan]

So it's a better use to spend 7M/yr of it on a bounce-back candidate for the next 4 years? And then just hide the rest in PTR's Twin Mattress?

[Guest]

So it's a better use to spend 7M/yr of it on a bounce-back candidate for the next 4 years? And then just hide the rest in PTR's Twin Mattress?

Kind of a false choice there. There are other options.

 

For example, they could trade Almora for a pitcher near the end of a big contract.

[Guest]

So it's a better use to spend 7M/yr of it on a bounce-back candidate for the next 4 years? And then just hide the rest in PTR's Twin Mattress?

 

Again, there are other options. Sign Maeda for a chunk of change. Sign Castillo and send Alcantara with another SP for a pre-arb guy Gio/Fister style, use money and prospects on Stanton, etc.

[XZero771679666304]

yeah

 

i'm as [expletive] pitching about anyone

 

and even though it naturally gives me some pause, i want them to hand out a big contract to a pitcher. i want them to for what it represents and because that means they are adding a TOR pitcher.

 

and because they have to spend the money on something. they can afford to be inefficient as hell on a couple of rotation spots with all the efficiency the'll have everywhere else.

 

Half the point of stockpiling all the young cheap bats is so they can risk that money. Anybody viewing a big contract to a pitcher as anything but awesome is crazypants.

 

totally

 

Well, that depends on the pitcher and the contract, but I generally agree. There are limits, though. I don't care how much free money you have, giving 7+ year deals to guys who already 32+ is just stupid. Lester and Scherzer are just young enough to make it palatable.

[davell]

I had kind of had it in my mind to sign Lester(if it takes 6 years, so be it). Sign Rusney, trade Alcantara for Wheeler.

 

C Castillo

1B Rizzo

2B Javy

SS Starlin

3B KB

LF Coghlan/Ruggiano until Russell comes up and KB takes LF

CF Rusney

RF Soler

 

SP-Lester, Arrieta, Wheeler, Wood, Hendricks, Jaxon, Turner, Straily, Doubront, Wada

[Guest]

If we do sign Rusney, I move we have tree mock up a Castillo here, Castillo here ms paint.

[Guest]

why do we build castillos in the sky

[SouthSideRyan]

So it's a better use to spend 7M/yr of it on a bounce-back candidate for the next 4 years? And then just hide the rest in PTR's Twin Mattress?

Kind of a false choice there. There are other options.

 

For example, they could trade Almora for a pitcher near the end of a big contract.

 

So you'd rather spend prospects and money for a guy in decline now than spend money for a guy who'll probably be in decline 4 years from now?

[sneakypower]

the difference in money is like $125M of commitments in tim's hypothetical

[Guest]

Sort of relevant (not just the Price stuff)

 

http://www.csnchicago.com/cubs/chris-archer-wouldnt-be-shocked-if-david-price-came-cubs

 

Really weird for Archer to be saying stuff like this, no?

[SouthSideRyan]

the difference in money is like $125M of commitments in tim's hypothetical

 

How many years? How many wins?

[Guest]

Sort of relevant (not just the Price stuff)

 

http://www.csnchicago.com/cubs/chris-archer-wouldnt-be-shocked-if-david-price-came-cubs

 

Really weird for Archer to be saying stuff like this, no?

 

I don't know that it's really weird, but it does sound like he's almost a bit jealous of what the Cubs have going on.

[SouthSideRyan]

Sort of relevant (not just the Price stuff)

 

http://www.csnchicago.com/cubs/chris-archer-wouldnt-be-shocked-if-david-price-came-cubs

 

Really weird for Archer to be saying stuff like this, no?

 

The headline is pretty misleading, but yes, it is strange for him to be talking up the Cubs prospects and future.