Today's wish list...

[Backtobanks]

Just saying....Stubbs can play all three OF spots, has an .804 career OPS against LHP, put up a .239 IsoSLG against RHs last year, a .944 OPS against LHP in 2014...He's a great fit for this bench roster and will cost much less than a Jackson.

 

I think we missed out on Ruggiano as a cheap 4th OF. He can play all 3 OF spots and signed for $1.65 million.

[Guest]

Ruggiano isn't a CF any more than Zobrist or Baez are.

 

Stubbs I could see a fit for, but the way he's trended with the bat since leaving Cincy is pretty worrisome, especially since he isn't a dynamite defender himself.

[Northsider]

Coghlan for Skaggs is an interesting value swap, but having a quality 4th OF means more to me than having a good 8th starter. I don't think you're getting a worthwhile 4th OF in free agency, so unless there's another deal already in the works to address it, I'd rather not get rid of Coghlan.

I would agree. But that's why I said the next move would be to bring in Jackson as the back up/4th OF. With the redundancies/shortcomings Coghlan has on the fit with the team right now I think we should try and maximize his value on what he's done here the past year and get a piece(s) that could more easily help/fit both this year and long term and bring in a guy (Jackson) that fits the team construction better.

 

I don't think it's realistic to expect to sign Jackson or someone of his caliber to be a 4th OF, they're going to want playing time that the Cubs cannot provide. That's part of why I'd be all about putting a package together for Desmond Jennings if you want a 4th OF with CF capabilities. I also have my doubts that the Cubs have the financial breathing room to sign someone in the Jackson tier, but that's secondary to the fact that the Jacksons and Parras of the world are going to want to play every day.

 

Considering you've got capable OF's in Zobrist and Bryant (and capable infielders in Baez and La Stella to plug in), I don't think it is as much an issue for the Cubs as for other teams. You've also got Almora & McKinney knocking at the door in the second half. Overall, I think it is an opportunity to further our pitching depth for not only this year, but next year as well.

 

Other teams probably have a little more certainty in their corner OFs too. I agree that a Coghlanless world is not a crisis, but I don't think an optionable pitcher(even one with some pedigree like Skaggs) is a big enough prize to downgrade the bench in that way.

 

Coghlan likely will lose value as a bench bat this season, though, and given pitching injuries, extra depth may be warranted. Once the big three OFs sign, Coghlan could have a substantial trade market - he was better than every Rockies OF in 2015, and only Dickerson was better in 2014. I agree that Skaggs/Tropeano are a bit too low of a value, though. Perhaps Cody Anderson of the Indians might be available at that time, if we include a prospect? Then there's the matter of finding a 4th OF: Stubbs has been mentioned, but he's an extreme K% guy on a team that already struggles with that. I prefer Ryan Raburn, who is a bit of a gamble (last two years, -1.3 WAR and 1.4 WAR) but clearly still has batting ability and profiles like a 4th OF.

 

That said, if we'd rather keep Coghlan, I could see (barely, in the latter case) two trades that still net us some depth: Tropeano for Szczur, and Alcantara for Skaggs.

 

Szczur has never gotten a good long look in the majors, so his struggles might be explainable as a result of inconsistent playing time, and of some BABIP luck (minors indicate he could sustain a higher rate than he has so far in the majors). Tropeano can't seem to go 6 innings consistently - Wada might be an apt comparison. The value is probably roughly even, with a little more upside for the Angels.

 

Alcantara for Skaggs would be a pure risk trade; both have a high chance of flaming out, but both have a lot of potential. I can't see the Angels doing this though if they think Skaggs will come back completely, unless they really like Alcantara.

[Backtobanks]

Ruggiano isn't a CF any more than Zobrist or Baez are.

 

Stubbs I could see a fit for, but the way he's trended with the bat since leaving Cincy is pretty worrisome, especially since he isn't a dynamite defender himself.

 

I didn't mean that he could play CF as a regular, but he could play the position if needed. He has more experience in CF than Zobrist, Baez, or Coughlan and would have been a decent bat off the bench or part time platoon with Scwarber.

[davell]

I doubt Alcantara has any value at all currently. Skaggs would be a very nice addition, but I can't imagine the Angels are giving him up for anything remotely close to that. Coghlan IS interesting from a value standpoint, but I'd think we'd be lucky to add a Sands/Steele type guy for him, much less a guy close/in the majors, even if he's coming off TJS.

 

As for Coghlan, I'd like to move him. But only if we can bring back Jackson for a year. We do need a better CF insurance policy than Szczur, unless their comfortable already with Javy out there(which I doubt, since he's played 4-5 games total in the OF in Winter Ball).

[Guest]

Ruggiano isn't a CF any more than Zobrist or Baez are.

 

Stubbs I could see a fit for, but the way he's trended with the bat since leaving Cincy is pretty worrisome, especially since he isn't a dynamite defender himself.

 

Stubbs isn't dynamite defensively, but he is a more competent and versatile OF glove than Coghlan. Also offers an element of speed and baserunning the bench doesn't have right now. Hes a perfect late inning LF for Cubs, where he was excellent last year in a small sample size. Still offers some power offensively, posted a 10% BB rate last year too IIRC, and is only a season removed from his strong 2014. Same age as Coghlan.

 

Let's put this a different way. There are going to be 4 or 5 bench spots on this roster, probably 4 to start given all the flexible multi-position guys. Right now those 4 are probably Ross, Coghlan, Baez, and La Stella, with Szczur looking in(and out of options). With that in mind, what does Stubbs do better than Baez? I don't think we can be certain he's a significantly better defender, that'd require Baez being well below average in the OF, which is possible but not likely. Stubbs in the last 3 years(or since leaving Cincy) has seen his K rate go from bad to ugly, and he has a .320 wOBA despite over 25% of those PA being in Coors and a .355 BABIP. He's also 31 so he's likely going to get worse before he gets better. With Jennings you at least have a better approach/peripherals/age to dream on, and a higher baseline of current production.

 

Really, the only OF Coghlan is a sensible backup for is Soler. He can't play CF at all or the corners well and he, like Schwarber, struggles against LHP. He's a cheap OF bat when teams are looking for one...I think now's a great time to sell and pick someone else up from the scrap heap to be the next Coghlan. Honestly, with the cost of pitching being what it is, wouldn't be surprised if he ended up with the Royals for LHPs Brad Hand, Sam Selman, and OF Reymond Fuentes.

 

I agree that Coghlan isn't a perfect fit for the current roster's OFs, but I don't think that's cause to ship him off for lesser players. All it takes is an injury to one of any number of regulars(Schwarber, Soler, probably Montero, maybe Zobrist) and Coghlan pretty clearly becomes part of the best 9, or at least as the fat part of the platoon.

[toonsterwu]

Here's the full article talking about the Angels which I got my idea from, which came from a MLBTR blurb. Would Coghlan/Villanueva/PJ for Skaggs/Tropeano and Salas/Smith be fair? Too much? Too little?

 

http://m.angels.mlb.com/news/article/160430500/angels-could-still-have-moves-in-store-for-16

 

The idea of Coghlan to the Angels makes some sense ... but if they are a bit tight on money, I'm not sure I wouldn't just into spring with the idea of Daniel Nava as part of a platoon in LF.

 

I actually think the Royals idea makes some sense ... only if they fail to bring back Gordon (or sign a guy). It does feel like KC may look at pitching or a hitter, and whoever bites first, explore the other area in a trade, so perhaps that's something to look at down the line. The idea of a Fuentes for Coghlan swap of some sort makes some sense in that this is the leadership that drafted him (and part of the leadership traded for him).

 

I mean, if we're just shooting teams that could make some sense, some creativity could make the Astros fit. He could conceivably slot in as a first baseman there, a cheap lefthanded bat, and if Singleton came around, Coghlan could be a 1st/corner OF backup. Depending on what happened with Chris Davis, Coghlan could make some sense in Baltimore as a cheap lefty bat with some pop.

 

Realistically, it's probably going to take the OF market settling for a Coghlan trade to happen and the timing makes things tight. More than likely, we're probably bringing him back unless a deal blows our socks off. I'm fine either way.

[Guest]

Having lived through the 85 Cubs I really want the Cubs to get some more starting rotation depth. I would like to see them do some minor league trades for guys who could step in at the MLB level if need be.

[Guest]

Having lived through the 85 Cubs I really want the Cubs to get some more starting rotation depth. I would like to see them do some minor league trades for guys who could step in at the MLB level if need be.

 

They've got Warren, Wood, and even Cahill who would fill that need as well as anybody they could trade for to start at Iowa.

[weis21]

Having lived through the 85 Cubs I really want the Cubs to get some more starting rotation depth. I would like to see them do some minor league trades for guys who could step in at the MLB level if need be.

the cubs have warren, wood, and even cahill that could step in and start if need be. i wouldn't necessarily be opposed to them adding a good starter (of course), but the need to add "depth" seems like it's unnecessary. at least to me - the 40 man roster is already in a crunch. Again, if they can pick up a quality #3-ish starter (I hate using that as a metric but I guess it's the easiest in this scenario) without overpaying then I'm fine. But after the Miller trade and the price on starting pitching in this FA class, I just think it will take too much. The cubs can use their resources in a better manner.

[Post Count Padder]

http://www.bleachernation.com/2016/01/11/lukewarm-stove-cubs-and-rays-upton-fowler-rodney-chen-lazarito-more/

 

Cubs and Rays have still been talking trades. Would still love to see us add McGee and one of their starters.

[toonsterwu]

I'm sort of okay going into the season with the pen as is, as I think the cost of the remaining options are likely to be too costly at this point. If something falls down price wise, sure.

 

In terms of "wishes", this has been as good an offseason as possible, not only for the upgrades, but because we haven't given up much from the system. This gives us a lot of flexibility in the next 2-3 seasons. That said, I can't help but still be a tad curious about the idea of Lucroy. There's a level of risk for Stearns to go into the year with Lucroy, and I still wonder, if the right deal came along, if he'd pull the trigger. The one thing their vastly improved system does need is a young catcher, so on the surface, without knowing how they felt about Contreras, there still seems to be the potential for a match. Of course, the idea of giving up Contreras for Lucroy is risky for us to some extent, so that'd be a tough deal to accomplish.

 

If that imaginary deal happened, I'd then try to move Montero's contract, with Washington a possible target (they've been rumored to be in on catchers, have some money, and Rizzo was SD in Arizona when they signed Montero). I'd try to simply get an upper level catcher back and hope another club ate the money left (Washington also fits in that regard with Spencer Kieboom and Pedro Severino). That gives us some payroll flexibility (which could be expanded a bit more), and I'd just play the waiting game and see if a FA's price falls (cost or years) that allows us to jump in. If a SP's price falls, then we jump in on a short term deal (giving up another pick now wouldn't matter much), and we see if we can move Hammel in a trade to add some assets (or they could even ponder moving Hendricks in some bigger deal, if a team wanted to give an arm and a leg). If no FA falls into our price/years range, and the org wants to hold that space for mid-season deals, okay.

 

All in all, sort of just waiting for the games to start. Ideally, we'd fill our pen questions internally.