General Cubs Chit-Chat

[Banedon]

The process included being really bad at developing pitching internally, forcing them to take high risk moves.

 

That's been an organizational philosophy though. Draft and develop badass position players, which are more predictable. Trade for and sign pitching in free agency because of the unpredictability. They weren't forced to make high risk moves...it was a strategic choice.

 

Originally that plan was to draft hitters with the high pick but still get pitchers by drafting them in bulk with supplemental picks and later rounds. That approach netted pretty much nothing.

 

Does trading Eddie Butler and Rollie Lacy for Hamels count as pretty much nothing? How about getting Chavez for Tyler Thomas? Those are just the recent ones. Just because we haven't had young studs developed through the system doesn't mean that we've gotten "pretty much nothing".

[Hairyducked Idiot]

 

That's been an organizational philosophy though. Draft and develop badass position players, which are more predictable. Trade for and sign pitching in free agency because of the unpredictability. They weren't forced to make high risk moves...it was a strategic choice.

 

Originally that plan was to draft hitters with the high pick but still get pitchers by drafting them in bulk with supplemental picks and later rounds. That approach netted pretty much nothing.

 

Does trading Eddie Butler and Rollie Lacy for Hamels count as pretty much nothing? How about getting Chavez for Tyler Thomas? Those are just the recent ones. Just because we haven't had young studs developed through the system doesn't mean that we've gotten "pretty much nothing".

 

Yes, definitely counts for nothing. The Hamels trade wasn't made for some burning desire to have Eddie Butler and Rollie Lacy. It was a salary dump.

[Tim]

 

That's been an organizational philosophy though. Draft and develop badass position players, which are more predictable. Trade for and sign pitching in free agency because of the unpredictability. They weren't forced to make high risk moves...it was a strategic choice.

 

Originally that plan was to draft hitters with the high pick but still get pitchers by drafting them in bulk with supplemental picks and later rounds. That approach netted pretty much nothing.

 

Does trading Eddie Butler and Rollie Lacy for Hamels count as pretty much nothing? How about getting Chavez for Tyler Thomas? Those are just the recent ones. Just because we haven't had young studs developed through the system doesn't mean that we've gotten "pretty much nothing".

We also have about ten guys in the upper half of the system who may turn out to be decent back end rotation guys, some of whom may be a cutter or a changed change grip away from being mid-rotation guys for a playoff team. I don't see any dominant aces there at this point, but there's a whole bunch of potential cheap production. Not to mention that some of them could move to the pen, pick up 2-3 ticks and become pretty good relievers.

[Banedon]

 

Originally that plan was to draft hitters with the high pick but still get pitchers by drafting them in bulk with supplemental picks and later rounds. That approach netted pretty much nothing.

 

Does trading Eddie Butler and Rollie Lacy for Hamels count as pretty much nothing? How about getting Chavez for Tyler Thomas? Those are just the recent ones. Just because we haven't had young studs developed through the system doesn't mean that we've gotten "pretty much nothing".

 

Yes, definitely counts for nothing. The Hamels trade wasn't made for some burning desire to have Eddie Butler and Rollie Lacy. It was a salary dump.

 

Who cares? It's still turning farm system pitching into quality pitching, no matter the motivation.

[Aaron_Kennelly]

Yeah, I think Strop closing is correct. It can’t be Carl because when he doesn’t have it, you’re screwed. I think Cishek is the best bet to put out fires, because he can get double plays and seems to have a rubber arm. Chavez needs to be able to go multiple innings if a starter horsefeathers up. Strop seems like the most old-school type closer we have — 1 inning, gets whiffs, might make it interesting but can get out of jams.

 

Strop has had his blowups too though and occasionally struggles with control. Maybe not as frequently or as bad as Carl but Carl has better overall stuff when he's on, and when he's off its mostly a control thing, he still doesnt usually get hit hard. I dunno I guess there is no ideal answer, and Strop has been mostly fine as closer and certainly has paid his dues in the Cubs pen.

 

Yeah, I don't think it matters too much. Strop, Edwards, and Cishek are all very good but we don't have that one elite guy at the end. I agree Carl is the better pitcher between he and Strop. Cishek might be, too. But I feel like Cishek is more of a Swiss Army knife that can fill multiple different roles. It doesn't matter too much which roles they are in for me, because they are similar talent-wise and will all be relied on a lot. If one fucks up, I don't care too much if they ruin it in the 8th or the 9th.

 

I do think Carl's blowups are different than Strop's though. That might just be my perception. And there could be some recency bias from something like last night. But I feel like Pedro has had a number of incidents where we've been on pins and needles; he's maybe put a couple guys on and then grinded his way through or suddenly found it and started striking guys out. When Carl doesn't have it, it always seems untenable to me.

 

Again, it probably doesn't matter too much who is doing it in the 8th and who in the 9th. But I feel like if there is one option whose best fit is as a 1-inning guy reserved for the 9th, it's probably Strop. They're all very different, though, with Strop having the nasty slider, Carl with his curve and spin, Cishek with the weird delivery. They'd be best utilized not having defined roles.

[Sammy Sofa]

I do think Carl's blowups are different than Strop's though. That might just be my perception. And there could be some recency bias from something like last night. But I feel like Pedro has had a number of incidents where we've been on pins and needles; he's maybe put a couple guys on and then grinded his way through or suddenly found it and started striking guys out. When Carl doesn't have it, it always seems untenable to me.

 

Totally agree; it feels like that when Strop gets into trouble, it's FAR more likely he will be able to work out of it. Once Carl starts letting guys on base, it feels like he's toast more often than not, and he's not going to be able to escape without damage.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

To put some numbers to it:

 

Edwards has given up a run in 10 appearances out of 48(21%), with 2 of those being unearned and 3 others being from the same week in June.

 

Strop has given up a run in 8 of 57 appearances(14%), none of those were unearned.

 

Cishek has given up a run in 14 of 67(21%), with one unearned and 3 of those coming in the last 2 weeks.

 

Giving up a run is a very crude example of 'not having it', especially since for most of the year all of those guys can be pulled when they run into trouble, but it's better than nothing.

[Aaron_Kennelly]

I do think Carl's blowups are different than Strop's though. That might just be my perception. And there could be some recency bias from something like last night. But I feel like Pedro has had a number of incidents where we've been on pins and needles; he's maybe put a couple guys on and then grinded his way through or suddenly found it and started striking guys out. When Carl doesn't have it, it always seems untenable to me.

 

Totally agree; it feels like that when Strop gets into trouble, it's FAR more likely he will be able to work out of it. Once Carl starts letting guys on base, it feels like he's toast more often than not, and he's not going to be able to escape without damage.

 

Yeah, although Strop getting into trouble sometimes leads to a 3-run bomb, other times it only makes things more nerve-racking watching him wriggle out of it. It's hard to tell which version you're about to see unfold. But it feels like when Carl gets in trouble, the only foreseeable outcome is him walking in runs until he is relieved. That's not always the case. But I personally just feel way more comfortable with Bad Pedro on the mound than Bad Carl.

[Sammy Sofa]

I do think Carl's blowups are different than Strop's though. That might just be my perception. And there could be some recency bias from something like last night. But I feel like Pedro has had a number of incidents where we've been on pins and needles; he's maybe put a couple guys on and then grinded his way through or suddenly found it and started striking guys out. When Carl doesn't have it, it always seems untenable to me.

 

Totally agree; it feels like that when Strop gets into trouble, it's FAR more likely he will be able to work out of it. Once Carl starts letting guys on base, it feels like he's toast more often than not, and he's not going to be able to escape without damage.

 

Yeah, although Strop getting into trouble sometimes leads to a 3-run bomb, other times it only makes things more nerve-racking watching him wriggle out of it. It's hard to tell which version you're about to see unfold. But it feels like when Carl gets in trouble, the only foreseeable outcome is him walking in runs until he is relieved. That's not always the case. But I personally just feel way more comfortable with Bad Pedro on the mound than Bad Carl.

 

Same here. Though the flipside of that is that when Carl is on he seems SO much better. Like, with Strop I'm always feeling a little nervous, despite his track record and reliability, just due to the general nature of how he pitches; kind of like a low grade Marmol when Marmol was in that in-between period between when he was godly and just turned bad. I'm usually feeling pretty great about Carl coming in since there's such a good chance he's going to take care of business with zero drama; it's just that if he lets that first batter get on I suddenly fall into the pit of dread.

[Aaron_Kennelly]

Same here. Though the flipside of that is that when Carl is on he seems SO much better. Like, with Strop I'm always feeling a little nervous, despite his track record and reliability, just due to the general nature of how he pitches; kind of like a low grade Marmol when Marmol was in that in-between period between when he was godly and just turned bad. I'm usually feeling pretty great about Carl coming in since there's such a good chance he's going to take care of business with zero drama; it's just that if he lets that first batter get on I suddenly fall into the pit of dread.

 

Yeah, Carl's way better with his ability to miss bats. And he gets a lot of weak contact. He's always among the league leaders in exit velocity. He fits the closer profile if he finds out how to harness his stuff more consistently. I do think he's been a lot better this year at avoiding trouble. It's happened some, but not as much. And he hasn't compounded things by giving up bombs like he did last year when he got in trouble. I think he has the stuff to be elite and he's right on the cusp of it. But he's still not quite there.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

:nono:

 

Does trading Eddie Butler and Rollie Lacy for Hamels count as pretty much nothing? How about getting Chavez for Tyler Thomas? Those are just the recent ones. Just because we haven't had young studs developed through the system doesn't mean that we've gotten "pretty much nothing".

 

Yes, definitely counts for nothing. The Hamels trade wasn't made for some burning desire to have Eddie Butler and Rollie Lacy. It was a salary dump.

 

Who cares? It's still turning farm system pitching into quality pitching, no matter the motivation.

 

No it isn’t. It’s turning available cash into quality pitching.

 

Butler wasn’t even a product of the Cubs farm system in any meaningful way. He came out of Colorado’s. He fake to us as a veteran MLB:AAA shuttle guy.

 

The original plan for developing pitching failed and this isn’t a controversial statement. Didn’t they even acknowledge this a couple of seasons ago when they shuffled some jobs around in scouting and development?

[minnesotacubsfan]

:nono:

 

Yes' date=' definitely counts for nothing. The Hamels trade wasn't made for some burning desire to have Eddie Butler and Rollie Lacy. It was a salary dump.[/quote']

 

Who cares? It's still turning farm system pitching into quality pitching, no matter the motivation.

 

No it isn’t. It’s turning available cash into quality pitching.

 

Butler wasn’t even a product of the Cubs farm system in any meaningful way. He came out of Colorado’s. He fake to us as a veteran MLB:AAA shuttle guy.

 

The original plan for developing pitching failed and this isn’t a controversial statement. Didn’t they even acknowledge this a couple of seasons ago when they shuffled some jobs around in scouting and development?

 

a couple of seasons ago the farm system was focused on hitters not pitchers. I dont think the shift in philosophy happened until after the org shake up you are referring to.

Edited September 6, 2018 by minnesotacubsfan

[Hairyducked Idiot]

:nono:

 

Who cares? It's still turning farm system pitching into quality pitching' date=' no matter the motivation.[/quote']

 

No it isn’t. It’s turning available cash into quality pitching.

 

Butler wasn’t even a product of the Cubs farm system in any meaningful way. He came out of Colorado’s. He fake to us as a veteran MLB:AAA shuttle guy.

 

The original plan for developing pitching failed and this isn’t a controversial statement. Didn’t they even acknowledge this a couple of seasons ago when they shuffled some jobs around in scouting and development?

 

a couple of seasons ago the farm system was focused on hitters not pitchers. I dont think the shift in philosophy didn't happen until after the org shake up you are referring to.

 

They sure did spend a ton of supplemental and 2nd-5th round picks on pitchers for not caring about them.

[imb]

yeahh the plan was obviously to hit on first round hitters and then grab pitchers in quantity and hope to get one or two hendrickses out of the deal, and they missed on all of them.

 

edit: they did hit on the hitters tho so that's nice

[Hairyducked Idiot]

From 2012-2014, the Cubs used 13 out of 14 picks between the supplemental first round and the 5th round on pitchers. Their plan definitely involved having some major league pitchers by now.

 

If that part of the process had gone according to plan, maybe we'd still have Eloy Jimenez or signing Darvish wouldn't have seemed so enticing.

 

The front office is brilliant, but it's OK to admit when things haven't gone right even in the process.

[17 Seconds]

waves AND waves

[champaignchris]

How many pitchers drafted in the supplemental and later rounds of the draft since 2012 should realistically be contributing to a playoff caliber team?

 

I counted.

 

The number of players drafted with the 31st and later pick of the draft since 2012 who have contributed at least 1 bWAR to one of the 13 teams (5 in the AL and 8 in the NL) competing for the playoffs is 14.

 

Brian Johnson, Chad Green, Lance McCullers, Lou Trivino, Sean Manaea, Nick Pavetta, Zach Eflin, Josh Hader, Austin Gomber, Jack Flaherty, Scott Oberg, Dylan Floro, Alex Wood, and Ross Stripling.

 

8 of the 14 were drafted in 2012, 4 were drafted in 2013, and the two Cardinals were drafted in 2014. If you want, you can add Victor Arano, a 2013 amateur free agent signing to make it 15.

 

8 of these 15 weren't originally drafted/signed by the team they currently play on, but were acquired by trade.

[Cubswin11]

From 2012-2014, the Cubs used 13 out of 14 picks between the supplemental first round and the 5th round on pitchers. Their plan definitely involved having some major league pitchers by now.

 

If that part of the process had gone according to plan, maybe we'd still have Eloy Jimenez or signing Darvish wouldn't have seemed so enticing.

 

The front office is brilliant, but it's OK to admit when things haven't gone right even in the process.

Yeah they definitely haven't done well to date there, but this year it seems like there's finally some arms in the system who could be contributors soon. Marquez and Adbert are the high end guys but it looks like we might have some guys that could at least be Jason Hammelish, which that's fine and still plenty valuable to have in house so we don't need to sign the Chatwood's of the world.

[davell]

I think there's more to all of this..... They've developed surplus positional guys. We've got the ability to.still trade from them to add a high end starter. They've also gotten a very solid group of non-exciting, but productive guys at the upper levels now. Most will get shelled, like Tseng did. But, the strength in numbers approach should actually produce a guy or two that conceivably turns into a Jason Hammel.(Alzolay, Mills, Robinson, Rucker, Thompson, Clifton, Swarmer, Steele)

 

And that would be HUGE for this organization. Finding a guy thru the org, having the ability to trade from positional depth for another, and oh yeah.... Are rolling in money and can still add thru FA too.

 

Yeah, this year was bad on the starting pitching front. But, they've done pretty well in the past, and I'd suspect that'll continue in the future. At least we know they'll be proactive and are trying to learn from what mistakes they made this past offseason.

 

If anything though, I see these discussions and just smile. The fact we're even discussing this stuff is awesome. 3 straight NLCS's, a freaking World Series, and this year the sky is falling because we're on pace to win 94-95 games and have home field thru out the NL playoffs.

 

We'll have a ton of depth next year pitching-wise, and they'll not go thru this again.

 

And yeah, we'll get Bryce too.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

My rule of thumb is that when you have to say "We don't have any great guys, but we have a ton of them, so someone is sure to turn out OK," your organizational pitching sucks. Guys who don't look amazing but could potentially figure it out are a dime a dozen. You can always fill up your minors with them whenever you feel like with minimal investment.

[davell]

My rule of thumb is that when you have to say "We don't have any great guys, but we have a ton of them, so someone is sure to turn out OK," your organizational pitching sucks. Guys who don't look amazing but could potentially figure it out are a dime a dozen. You can always fill up your minors with them whenever you feel like with minimal investment.

 

I can see that and don't blame anyone for thinking that way. That said, this is by FAR, the deepest we've been organizationally, with decent guys. I honestly believe this is the actual strategy that they've put into place, over the last few years. We'll see whether it works or not.

 

I wish we had had Flaherty drop to us, he was our target with our second pick his year. Honeycutt was a guy we had targeted as well. Only lost Urias due to him inexplicably being at Puigs workout for the Dodgers....... Obviously, we missed on them. But, just one hit and this entire narrative is dead.

 

Like I said, in the end, all we need, is one Hammel type to emerge. I feel confident it will. I am also confident we can trade for an upper end type. Or, we could trade for an upper level pitching prospect or two, even if that's unlikely. Plus, we've got money to burn.

 

Whether we actually develop a starting pitcher is almost immaterial. Because hitting on the vast majority of our hitters, has kept us in position to make deals.

 

They know their true strengths and they've played within them mostly, with tons of success. I have no issues with our overall pitching outlook going forward.

[Banedon]

Fangraphs playoff odds are kinda ridiculous. I know those odds have long loved the Dodgers despite their struggles, but they are a game and a half out of first place in their own division, but have a 5% better chance of winning the World Series than the Cubs.

[Sammys Boombox]

Fangraphs playoff odds are kinda ridiculous. I know those odds have long loved the Dodgers despite their struggles, but they are a game and a half out of first place in their own division, but have a 5% better chance of winning the World Series than the Cubs.

Dodgers:

1.5 GB division 2 GB WC (with the DBacks only 1 GB of them)

71% chance to MAKE LDS

32% chance to WIN LCS

15% chance to WIN WS

 

Braves:

3 games up (2 team race)

76% chance to MAKE LDS

10% chance to WIN LCS

2% chance to WIN WS

 

Cubs:

4.5 games up

96% chance to MAKE LDS

29% chance to WIN LCS

10% chance to WIN WS

 

My first contention is that the Dodgers make LDS is too high, and my second contention is that the win LCS is waaaaaaay too high. The Braves percentages are all way too low. I actually think the Cubs are spot on, except the win WS should probably be closer to 15%.

[UMFan83]

Fangraphs playoff odds are kinda ridiculous. I know those odds have long loved the Dodgers despite their struggles, but they are a game and a half out of first place in their own division, but have a 5% better chance of winning the World Series than the Cubs.

Dodgers:

1.5 GB division 2 GB WC (with the DBacks only 1 GB of them)

71% chance to MAKE LDS

32% chance to WIN LCS

15% chance to WIN WS

 

Braves:

3 games up (2 team race)

76% chance to MAKE LDS

10% chance to WIN LCS

2% chance to WIN WS

 

Cubs:

4.5 games up

96% chance to MAKE LDS

29% chance to WIN LCS

10% chance to WIN WS

 

My first contention is that the Dodgers make LDS is too high, and my second contention is that the win LCS is waaaaaaay too high. The Braves percentages are all way too low. I actually think the Cubs are spot on, except the win WS should probably be closer to 15%.

 

I think part of the reason they love the Dodgers is because despite struggling and finding themselves multiple games out of a playoff spot with 20 games to go, they have the best run differential in the NL. I don't know how their projections are calculated but they probably projected them to be the best team in the NL heading into the season, and based on one metric (RD) they have played like the best team in the NL this season so they should play 1.5 games better than the Rockies (who have a negative RD this year) over a 20 game sample and if they make the playoffs will play like the favorites.

 

Or maybe I'm assuming that they are putting too much emphasis on RD.

[champaignchris]

Schedule plays a role in it too. The Dodgers have a significantly easier remaining SoS, while the Rockies and DBacks are tied for the toughest remaining SoS in the League per Fangraphs.

 

All told, they predict the Dodgers finishing 14-8 and the Rocks and DBacks both finishing 11-12.

 

I think the difference between the Cubs and Dodgers WS chances comes down to them thinking the Brewers/Cardinals are better teams than the Braves and thus the Cubs will have the tougher time getting to the NLCS. Not an unreasonable assessment in my view.