General Cubs Chit-Chat

[Bull]

He simply stated the Cubs have to replace 2 guys in the starting rotation, which they do. Pointing out Lester's age and how their starting rotation situation can, ominously, turn into a liability relatively quickly doesn't seem like too crazy a stretch. Being ranked #8 isn't some kind of crazy slap in the face for a team that has some real work to do with its starting pitching (yes, I know this will likely lead to a flood of posts about how I shouldn't worry about the starting rotation because: FO).

While all you say is true, I think it’s more that with 30-40M to spend, declaring the situation bleak is premature and trying to declare it anything at all at this point is an exercise in futility.

[jersey cubs fan]

He simply stated the Cubs have to replace 2 guys in the starting rotation, which they do. Pointing out Lester's age and how their starting rotation situation can, ominously, turn into a liability relatively quickly doesn't seem like too crazy a stretch. Being ranked #8 isn't some kind of crazy slap in the face for a team that has some real work to do with its starting pitching (yes, I know this will likely lead to a flood of posts about how I shouldn't worry about the starting rotation because: FO).

While all you say is true, I think it’s more that with 30-40M to spend, declaring the situation bleak is premature and trying to declare it anything at all at this point is an exercise in futility.

 

When the hell did they declare the situation bleak?

 

Are we just forgetting the part where they were ranked top 4 in the NL and said this:

 

Look, they should be good again, and maybe even better.

[Sammy Sofa]

He simply stated the Cubs have to replace 2 guys in the starting rotation, which they do. Pointing out Lester's age and how their starting rotation situation can, ominously, turn into a liability relatively quickly doesn't seem like too crazy a stretch. Being ranked #8 isn't some kind of crazy slap in the face for a team that has some real work to do with its starting pitching (yes, I know this will likely lead to a flood of posts about how I shouldn't worry about the starting rotation because: FO).

While all you say is true, I think it’s more that with 30-40M to spend, declaring the situation bleak is premature and trying to declare it anything at all at this point is an exercise in futility.

 

But who is declaring it "bleak?" Again, he ranked them #8! People are just pointing out that that the pitching has at least a semi-realistic chance of being a liability. It didn't come across to me at all (nor am I saying) that the starting pitching is doomed, but there IS significant work to be done (and yes, I'm hopeful the FO will come through with both a choice signing and a trade), and I think basically just assuming that the starting pitching will be fine is being more than a tad overconfident.

 

I mean, is it that much of a reach to think that 34-year old Jon Lester is kind of a big question mark?

[Bull]

He simply stated the Cubs have to replace 2 guys in the starting rotation, which they do. Pointing out Lester's age and how their starting rotation situation can, ominously, turn into a liability relatively quickly doesn't seem like too crazy a stretch. Being ranked #8 isn't some kind of crazy slap in the face for a team that has some real work to do with its starting pitching (yes, I know this will likely lead to a flood of posts about how I shouldn't worry about the starting rotation because: FO).

While all you say is true, I think it’s more that with 30-40M to spend, declaring the situation bleak is premature and trying to declare it anything at all at this point is an exercise in futility.

 

When the hell did they declare the situation bleak?

 

Are we just forgetting the part where they were ranked top 4 in the NL and said this:

 

Look, they should be good again, and maybe even better.

 

Anything but number 1 and the words “juggernaut,” “legendary,” “historically dongish,” and “everyone else should phone it in,” Is underselling these Cubs.

 

Seriously though, he dismissed Bryzzo failed to mention Contreras, and suggested trading Russell, Baez or Happ (as though they were interchangeable) as the only way to guard against complete rotation meltdown. It was silly.

 

But my broader point is that the entire exercise is silly at this point. No one has been able to make any moves yet. Anything but Astros #1, Dodgers #2, Cubs and Yanks 3&4, & playoff teams 5-8 right now is dismissive to this season.

[Sammy Sofa]

That's a lot of reading between the lines for an early power ranking that, again, has them #8 in all of baseball and #4 in the NL. Personally, I don't think ranking the Cubs behind several teams who are almost all in better shape with their pitching right now is some kind of terrible slight.

[jersey cubs fan]

Seriously though, he dismissed Bryzzo failed to mention Contreras, and suggested trading Russell, Baez or Happ (as though they were interchangeable) as the only way to guard against complete rotation meltdown. It was silly.

 

But my broader point is that the entire exercise is silly at this point. No one has been able to make any moves yet. Anything but Astros #1, Dodgers #2, Cubs and Yanks 3&4, & playoff teams 5-8 right now is dismissive to this season.

Seriously though, you're completely misreading.

 

He didn't dismiss Bryzzo. It was a 4 sentence general assessment of the team in which he explicitly says they should be good again and maybe better than that last year.

[UMFan83]

Bottom line there is some questions with this team, questions that can easily be solved in the offseason. The foundation is there and its strong which is why they are clearly a top 10 team despite needing to replace their closer and 40% of their rotation. If they address their issues properly as we expect them to they will be looked at as a top 5 team heading into the season IMO.

 

And then ultimately when they come out of the gate kicking ass everyone will anoint them once again.

[ScrubMD]

He simply stated the Cubs have to replace 2 guys in the starting rotation, which they do. Pointing out Lester's age and how their starting rotation situation can, ominously, turn into a liability relatively quickly doesn't seem like too crazy a stretch. Being ranked #8 isn't some kind of crazy slap in the face for a team that has some real work to do with its starting pitching (yes, I know this will likely lead to a flood of posts about how I shouldn't worry about the starting rotation because: FO).

 

I think 8th is fair, I was just annoyed at him being a lazy douche. Starting with him basing the top of his rankings on 1 game. He would have had the Dodgers #1 if they had won last night, and the Indians (who should probably be #1) are only #3 because of a 5 game series.

 

And the Cubs are only in danger of a rotation collapse any more than any other team if they try to replace Arrieta and Lackey in-house, which obviously isn’t going to happen. They have 2 of the best young’ish pitchers in the league. The whole thing was just lazy and pushing an already-established sports media narrative.

[KingCubsFan]

That's a lot of reading between the lines for an early power ranking that, again, has them #8 in all of baseball and #4 in the NL. Personally, I don't think ranking the Cubs behind several teams who are almost all in better shape with their pitching right now is some kind of terrible slight.

Definitely nitpicking, but I wouldn't put the Cubs behind the Yankees, Red Sox and DBacks. All those teams have legitimate question marks.

[Sammy Sofa]

He simply stated the Cubs have to replace 2 guys in the starting rotation, which they do. Pointing out Lester's age and how their starting rotation situation can, ominously, turn into a liability relatively quickly doesn't seem like too crazy a stretch. Being ranked #8 isn't some kind of crazy slap in the face for a team that has some real work to do with its starting pitching (yes, I know this will likely lead to a flood of posts about how I shouldn't worry about the starting rotation because: FO).

 

I think 8th is fair, I was just annoyed at him being a lazy douche. Starting with him basing the top of his rankings on 1 game. He would have had the Dodgers #1 if they had won last night, and the Indians (who should probably be #1) are only #3 because of a 5 game series.

 

It's pretty obvious the top 3 on that list, especially right now, are basically interchangeable. so griping about which of them is technically #1 is REALLY splitting some hairs.

 

And the Cubs are only in danger of a rotation collapse any more than any other team if they try to replace Arrieta and Lackey in-house, which obviously isn’t going to happen. They have 2 of the best young’ish pitchers in the league. The whole thing was just lazy and pushing an already-established sports media narrative.

 

It's ridiculous to think that the Cubs' pitching situation right now at the time this list was made is really comparable with almost all of the teams ahead of them. You guys are getting really worked up over a really early power ranking based on how the teams are made up RIGHT NOW that has the Cubs as one of the best teams in baseball.

[Sammy Sofa]

That's a lot of reading between the lines for an early power ranking that, again, has them #8 in all of baseball and #4 in the NL. Personally, I don't think ranking the Cubs behind several teams who are almost all in better shape with their pitching right now is some kind of terrible slight.

Definitely nitpicking, but I wouldn't put the Cubs behind the Yankees, Red Sox and DBacks. All those teams have legitimate question marks.

 

Yankees, I agree...Red Sox and Diamondbacks, not necessarily. But basically it's a tight, interchangable bunch in the top 3, and then the next 5 are also teams that can be moved around within those groups and not really be all that "wrong."

[jersey cubs fan]

that entire ranking gets my tommy lastella seal of approval with this line alone:

 

Dusty Baker is gone, but everybody important is back.

[ScrubMD]

He simply stated the Cubs have to replace 2 guys in the starting rotation, which they do. Pointing out Lester's age and how their starting rotation situation can, ominously, turn into a liability relatively quickly doesn't seem like too crazy a stretch. Being ranked #8 isn't some kind of crazy slap in the face for a team that has some real work to do with its starting pitching (yes, I know this will likely lead to a flood of posts about how I shouldn't worry about the starting rotation because: FO).

 

I think 8th is fair, I was just annoyed at him being a lazy douche. Starting with him basing the top of his rankings on 1 game. He would have had the Dodgers #1 if they had won last night, and the Indians (who should probably be #1) are only #3 because of a 5 game series.

 

It's pretty obvious the top 3 on that list, especially right now, are basically interchangeable. so griping about which of them is technically #1 is REALLY splitting some hairs.

 

And the Cubs are only in danger of a rotation collapse any more than any other team if they try to replace Arrieta and Lackey in-house, which obviously isn’t going to happen. They have 2 of the best young’ish pitchers in the league. The whole thing was just lazy and pushing an already-established sports media narrative.

 

It's ridiculous to think that the Cubs' pitching situation right now at the time this list was made is really comparable with almost all of the teams ahead of them. You guys are getting really worked up over a really early power ranking based on how the teams are made up RIGHT NOW that has the Cubs as one of the best teams in baseball.

 

Is that guy your dad or something?

[CubColtPacer]

Those power rankings line up pretty well with where Vegas has set the early odds, where the Cubs are tied for the 6th best chance of winning.

[Sammy Sofa]

I'm just apparently one of the very few that actually read the headline:

 

The way-too-early 2018 power rankings

 

OH MY, THE SLANDER!

[ScrubMD]

 

It's pretty obvious the top 3 on that list, especially right now, are basically interchangeable. so griping about which of them is technically #1 is REALLY splitting some hairs.

 

I don't consider the Dodgers interchangeable with the Indians.

 

It's ridiculous to think that the Cubs' pitching situation right now at the time this list was made is really comparable with almost all of the teams ahead of them. You guys are getting really worked up over a really early power ranking based on how the teams are made up RIGHT NOW that has the Cubs as one of the best teams in baseball.

 

Going by RIIGHT NOOW:

 

The Dodgers have Kershaw (yeah, ok), Old Man Hill (who can barely throw over 100 innings and will be 38, which is old), Wood (who is ok but seems to get hurt a lot), Maeda (who isn't good), and a few guys who may or may not be alive.

 

The Cubs have Hendricks (the young wolf), Quintana (the young Lester), Lester (the old Lester), Montgomery (the young Rich Hill - I was surprised to learn that Montgomery only pitched 5 fewer innings than Hill and was worth .3 more wins)

 

Even if you throw Tseng in the 5th spot, that's still probably an above average rotation. There are several teams with a more solid current 5, "rotation collapse" just seemed really dumb to me.

[KingCubsFan]

 

It's pretty obvious the top 3 on that list, especially right now, are basically interchangeable. so griping about which of them is technically #1 is REALLY splitting some hairs.

 

I don't consider the Dodgers interchangeable with the Indians.

 

It's ridiculous to think that the Cubs' pitching situation right now at the time this list was made is really comparable with almost all of the teams ahead of them. You guys are getting really worked up over a really early power ranking based on how the teams are made up RIGHT NOW that has the Cubs as one of the best teams in baseball.

 

Going by RIIGHT NOOW:

 

The Dodgers have Kershaw (yeah, ok), Old Man Hill (who can barely throw over 100 innings and will be 38, which is old), Wood (who is ok but seems to get hurt a lot), Maeda (who isn't good), and a few guys who may or may not be alive.

 

The Cubs have Hendricks (the young wolf), Quintana (the young Lester), Lester (the old Lester), Montgomery (the young Rich Hill - I was surprised to learn that Montgomery only pitched 5 fewer innings than Hill and was worth .3 more wins)

 

Even if you throw Tseng in the 5th spot, that's still probably an above average rotation. There are several teams with a more solid current 5, "rotation collapse" just seemed really dumb to me.

The Dodgers also have Walker Buehler

[Sammy Sofa]

The Cubs have Hendricks and Quintana, whatever the hell 34-year old Lester is going to be, and Montgomery the swingman, and essentially no pitching depth. But yes, saying that the starting rotation MIGHT be a liability is beyond the pale, I guess.

[Banedon]

The Cubs have Hendricks and Quintana, whatever the hell 34-year old Lester is going to be, and Montgomery the swingman, and essentially no pitching depth. But yes, saying that the starting rotation MIGHT be a liability is beyond the pale, I guess.

 

Which is exactly why the whole thing is stupid. Every team has big holes because of free agency.

[jersey cubs fan]

The Cubs have Hendricks and Quintana, whatever the hell 34-year old Lester is going to be, and Montgomery the swingman, and essentially no pitching depth. But yes, saying that the starting rotation MIGHT be a liability is beyond the pale, I guess.

 

Which is exactly why the whole thing is stupid. Every team has big holes because of free agency.

Jimminy freaking christmas people.

 

Welcome to the internet, where people write articles about stuff that may not be the most necessary thing in the world but is content that other people read.

 

It was a perfectly reasonable "where things stand now" article. There was nothing wrong or snarky or overly negative about the Cubs blurb. He ranked them high, said they were good and might be better, but probably need to add a significant amount of pitching.

[Sammy Sofa]

The Cubs have Hendricks and Quintana, whatever the hell 34-year old Lester is going to be, and Montgomery the swingman, and essentially no pitching depth. But yes, saying that the starting rotation MIGHT be a liability is beyond the pale, I guess.

 

Which is exactly why the whole thing is stupid. Every team has big holes because of free agency.

 

For the love of...

 

The way-too-early 2018 power rankings

 

THIS EXERCISE IN EXACTLY WHAT IT SAID IT WAS THAT CLEARLY TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THAT NO TEAM HAS MADE ANY PLAYER MOVES VEXES ME GREATLY.

 

Serious question: who is going to be genuinely bothered when these lists start coming out closer to the season if the Cubs aren't regularly in the top 5?

[David]

yeah. i love to take in as much content as i can as long as it is remotely useful, but the real problem here is the fact that a way too early power rankings article even exists (really, power rankings in general, but i can see how they're at least sort of fun at the appropriate time). what was written about the cubs there, and the fact that they rank 8th with 2 openings in the rotation, isn't the actual problem.

[UMFan83]

Random question/discussion (and posted here because I don't see an Almora thread):

 

When Almora was drafted people raved about his ability to make contact and his overall hit tool. For a high schooler he seemed like a pretty safe pick (right?). But in the minors he struggled quite a bit to the point where we was in the second tier (or maybe even third tier) of a stacked Cubs farm. When he got called up, I wasn't expecting a ton but felt like he could still develop into a solid hitter.

 

1.5 years later and I'd say the results have been pretty good though short of great. .334 wOBA in 2017, 16% K rate, 103 wRC+ all slightly above average numbers. The caveat is that he was very selectively used this year mostly against left handers and in situations he could succeed...make him an everyday player and those numbers probably don't look as nice.

 

So I guess my question is, how do you project Almora going forward? On opening day he will be a few weeks shy of 24 so he's still got time to develop. What have you seen from him that suggests he can be an above average overall hitter (or at least above average overall player with defense and baserunning considered)? Do you still have hope of him developing into an All Star caliber hitter?

 

I felt extremely comfortable with him hitting against left handers the 2nd half of the season and playoffs but overall I guess I can't get a feel for his progression and development.

[Banedon]

The Cubs have Hendricks and Quintana, whatever the hell 34-year old Lester is going to be, and Montgomery the swingman, and essentially no pitching depth. But yes, saying that the starting rotation MIGHT be a liability is beyond the pale, I guess.

 

Which is exactly why the whole thing is stupid. Every team has big holes because of free agency.

 

For the love of...

 

The way-too-early 2018 power rankings

 

THIS EXERCISE IN EXACTLY WHAT IT SAID IT WAS THAT CLEARLY TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THAT NO TEAM HAS MADE ANY PLAYER MOVES VEXES ME GREATLY.

 

Serious question: who is going to be genuinely bothered when these lists start coming out closer to the season if the Cubs aren't regularly in the top 5?

 

I understand that it was exactly what it says. I'm not faulting the article for how it was written, or that it was wrong with it's conclusion. I simply was saying that the entire premise is silly, and spending a bunch of time arguing it isn't very constructive.

 

Now...back to the whole crunchy peanut butter business....

[David]

Random question/discussion (and posted here because I don't see an Almora thread):

 

When Almora was drafted people raved about his ability to make contact and his overall hit tool. For a high schooler he seemed like a pretty safe pick (right?). But in the minors he struggled quite a bit to the point where we was in the second tier (or maybe even third tier) of a stacked Cubs farm. When he got called up, I wasn't expecting a ton but felt like he could still develop into a solid hitter.

 

1.5 years later and I'd say the results have been pretty good though short of great. .334 wOBA in 2017, 16% K rate, 103 wRC+ all slightly above average numbers. The caveat is that he was very selectively used this year mostly against left handers and in situations he could succeed...make him an everyday player and those numbers probably don't look as nice.

 

So I guess my question is, how do you project Almora going forward? On opening day he will be a few weeks shy of 24 so he's still got time to develop. What have you seen from him that suggests he can be an above average overall hitter (or at least above average overall player with defense and baserunning considered)? Do you still have hope of him developing into an All Star caliber hitter?

 

I felt extremely comfortable with him hitting against left handers the 2nd half of the season and playoffs but overall I guess I can't get a feel for his progression and development.

 

I think something along the lines of kiermaier is his offensive upside. unfortunately, it really doesn't look like his defense will live up to that comp on that side.

 

it's pretty funny that he was the one prospect we had whose defense was lauded big time coming up, with guys like russell and baez having their question marks, and KB's seen as a liability.