"Time makes fools of us all" - The Kyle Schwarber Thread

[Sammy Sofa]

I'm not at all opposed to criticizing Theo/Jed...the failure to develop a single pitcher, what looks to be multiple misses in free agency, and that's before getting into things like Chapman, Murphy, Russell. But it's easy to look back at Happ/Almora/Schwarber/Russell now and be like 'well inevitably they were going to turn into garbage, and only we were supposed to know that and flip them at exactly the right time' when 'the right time' was when everyone was thinking 'these guys are a big part of our future'.

 

I'm not saying they're supposed to magically know which guys aren't going to pan out; I'm saying the assumption should be that some of those guys weren't going pan out because that's baseball, and the prudent thing to do is to take the inherent gamble on who they think that guy or guys might be and try to bolster another part of the team. To not utilize ANY of them as a trade asset is what bugs me. Maybe the right time never was there, but it just seems kinda glaring to glom onto essentially everyone of note you've promoted when the FO is supposed to be so good at being able to continue to spot and develop talent.

 

But...they did? They turned Eloy into a starter who was top 10-top 20 in fWAR oover the previous few years with a bunch of control. They turned Vogelbach into a swing guy with a ton of team control. They turned Gleyber into the best closer for 2016, then they turned Soler into an elite closer for 2017. They clearly prioritized trading people who were still in the minors vs players that had shown some level of major league success, but we've been in 'win now' mode for 4+ seasons now...it's not exactly surprising they chose to deal from the minors than take away from talent that was (at the time) producing in the major leagues for a contending team.

 

I never slammed them for not being willing to trade prospects like Eloy, Vogelbach and Gleyber; Soler is the only guy along the lines of what I'm talking about. And trading guys like him doesn't take them out of win now-mode; I would have preferred for 1-2 more moves to happen along those lines to bolster the pitching more. I would have much rather gone after another Quintana-type of target than having to sign someone like Darvish.

[squally1313]

 

I'm not saying they're supposed to magically know which guys aren't going to pan out; I'm saying the assumption should be that some of those guys weren't going pan out because that's baseball, and the prudent thing to do is to take the inherent gamble on who they think that guy or guys might be and try to bolster another part of the team. To not utilize ANY of them as a trade asset is what bugs me. Maybe the right time never was there, but it just seems kinda glaring to glom onto essentially everyone of note you've promoted when the FO is supposed to be so good at being able to continue to spot and develop talent.

 

But...they did? They turned Eloy into a starter who was top 10-top 20 in fWAR oover the previous few years with a bunch of control. They turned Vogelbach into a swing guy with a ton of team control. They turned Gleyber into the best closer for 2016, then they turned Soler into an elite closer for 2017. They clearly prioritized trading people who were still in the minors vs players that had shown some level of major league success, but we've been in 'win now' mode for 4+ seasons now...it's not exactly surprising they chose to deal from the minors than take away from talent that was (at the time) producing in the major leagues for a contending team.

 

I never slammed them for not being willing to trade prospects like Eloy, Vogelbach and Gleyber; Soler is the only guy along the lines of what I'm talking about. And trading guys like him doesn't take them out of win now-mode; I would have preferred for 1-2 more moves to happen along those lines to bolster the pitching more. I would have much rather gone after another Quintana-type of target than having to sign someone like Darvish.

 

But the idea of trading them when their value was high implies that at the time they played important roles in present and future of the team. Schwarber was supposed to be a big piece coming off 2015 (and 2016), and he became an even bigger piece as Eloy and Soler were traded away. The outfield in general became much less settled when Heyward turned to garbage the day after signing his deal.

 

Someone like Baez or Russell is expendable when you have a top middle infield prospect in Gleyber knocking at the door, but once he gets traded you're left with two guys who hadn't shown an ability to hit above .240 and a late 30s Ben Zobrist (who, because of Heyward, was needed in the outfield quite a bit).

 

I know the board has pretty much always hated Almora and it's easy to think he had trade value given that he 'looks like a ballplayer' and 'plays the game the right way', but I'm willing to bet he has never been at the point where he would bring back anything of value.

[Sammy Sofa]

But the idea of trading them when their value was high implies that at the time they played important roles in present and future of the team.

 

Well, yeah, that's what you have to do to get the best return with these sorts of assets. It's an automatic risk that can't be avoided.

 

Someone like Baez or Russell is expendable when you have a top middle infield prospect in Gleyber knocking at the door, but once he gets traded you're left with two guys who hadn't shown an ability to hit above .240 and a late 30s Ben Zobrist (who, because of Heyward, was needed in the outfield quite a bit).

 

Sure, boiling it down to just their BA makes them sound both unappealing to the Cubs AND other teams, but we both know that wasn't the case because of the success/value they had displayed despite their BA, and because of their ages. Yeah, trading both would have been dumb, but possibly trading one could have worked. They didn't have their backs at the wall, especially since, again, they're supposed to be so good at continually drafting and developing talent, especially offensively. They, unfortunately, hit the wall in the regard, and in being willing/able to sign impact players, so that just highlights not trading any of the promoted players besides Soler as potentially a really bad move.

 

You keep repeating how many games they won last year, and so much of that was due to the offense. And yeah, that's great, but the pitching was obviously an issue, and going to become a bigger issue, and the cupboard is so very bare. They seemingly decided to put almost all of their eggs in the homegrown hitting basket, and unfortunately that might turn out to have not given them much more of a window.

 

I know the board has pretty much always hated Almora and it's easy to think he had trade value given that he 'looks like a ballplayer' and 'plays the game the right way', but I'm willing to bet he has never been at the point where he would bring back anything of value.

 

Dude was, confusingly, a ranked prospect for 5 years. Go figure.

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

 

The WS was in 2016. Running the team since then like they figured everyone they promoted was going to pan out in the long run is some completely unrealistic video game nonsense.

 

What kind of law of averages bs is this?!

[Sammy Sofa]

It's the 21st law of power.

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

It's the 21st law of power.

...can't argue with that.

[squally1313]

You can trade major league talent (who have major league roles) if you have minor league talent there to step in and take over. When you trade the minor league talent, if you trade the major league talent you're left having to sign the Daniel Descalsos of the world. I'm not going to try and go back and recreate platoon lineups over the last couple years, but going into 2018 with just Javy and Zobrist as middle infielders, and needing Zobrist to play right field a bunch, would have meant way more Tommy LaStella than anyone would have been comfortable with. And that's trading Russell, who already had noted character concerns and was coming off a definite step back in 2017, so who knows what that even would have gotten you. Yeah, maybe you trade Baez after his breakout 2016 playoffs, but if we're going to revisionist history all of this, I don't think that's a decision that would have worked out.

 

I don't think the 'plan' was necessarily to get 10-12 hitters, pick the 5 that were going to work out, and flip the rest for pitching. Thinking back on those drafts, it was hitter first, and then just a ton of pitching projects where you just assumed odds were that a few of them would pan out by the time Lester/Lackey/Hendricks/Arrieta were old/expensive. So far, we've seen zero pitchers, and that's what I think the real failure is.

 

Ian Happ is the only player from the 2015 draft to see the majors. 2014 is Schwarber, Zagunis, and 11 whole innings from James Norwood. 2013 is KB, Rob Z, and Zack Godley (traded for Montero). 2012 was Almora then 7 straight pitchers, the 'best' of whom is Paul Blackburn. There's been nothing pretty much this whole decade, and so the excess offensive prospects we developed (that could take over for the guys who made the majors and then hit a wall) all had to go to fill in those gaps.

[Cubswin11]

 

That, and it applies potentially to multiple guys on the team. I get the video game appeal of fielding a team of almost nothing but homegrown stud bats, but that's not something likely to pan out, and it's not like the pitching issues were ever going to be something to take them by surprise with the way the team was constructed and how their drafting went.

They won a WS and have the most wins in MLB since all these guys were up together. I’d say it has panned out.

 

The WS was in 2016. Running the team since then like they figured everyone they promoted was going to pan out in the long run is some completely unrealistic video game nonsense.

 

Again, it's about dealing from a position of strength for a position of weakness; it's been obvious for a while that pitching development wasn't panning out AND that the Cubs had a starting rotation that needed some work. I simply would have preferred they had moved to bring in pitching prospects and/or established starters instead of hoarding all of Their Guys.

 

Sure, maybe the moves simply weren't there, or the timing didn't line up. And I'm not saying they should have traded all or most of those names. But to act like keeping them all was some kind of, "well, what do you expect, ah-doy?!?"-move doesn't track.

They’ve won 90+ games a year since then and did trade from the strength (Eloy) for pitching. We all would’ve been pissed if they traded any of the guys off the MLB roster for horsefeathering pitching prospects in 2017 or 2018. Come on. You’re letting this rough ~15 game start let you a revise a history/create a narrative that I don’t think is really there. I would’ve loved to have done more this offseason, we probably should’ve, but I don’t think anyone was thinking we should’ve done crazy moves 1-2 offseason ago. We kinda were fine letting the young roster shake out and it kinda, mostly worked.

[PackLandVA]

The problem with the Cubs last year and the first month of this season are NOT as Schwarber, Almora, Happ, Contreras, Heyward, Darvish, Quintana, Edwards, Morrow or anyone else not named Bryzzo.

 

Those guys are the fuel of the offense that runs everything else and has a huge impact on the other players. If they do their jobs simultaneously, it makes every other spot on the team better, including the pitching. Because, in general, it’s easier to pitch with a lead, especially a big lead.

 

As Bryzzo goes, so go the Cubs. It’s that simple.

[squally1313]

The problem with the Cubs last year and the first month of this season are NOT as Schwarber, Almora, Happ, Contreras, Heyward, Darvish, Quintana, Edwards, Morrow or anyone else not named Bryzzo.

 

Those guys are the fuel of the offense that runs everything else and has a huge impact on the other players. If they do their jobs simultaneously, it makes every other spot on the team better, including the pitching. Because, in general, it’s easier to pitch with a lead, especially a big lead.

 

As Bryzzo goes, so go the Cubs. It’s that simple.

 

This is a bad take.

[Sammy Sofa]

We all would’ve been pissed if they traded any of the guys off the MLB roster for horsefeathering pitching prospects in 2017 or 2018.

 

Right, which is why I wanted them to trade for at least another good pitcher who could slot in right away. I only mentioned pitching prospects as a possibility they could have opted to go for if they had wanted to be REAL bold right after the WS, but that's not something I was rooting for them to do.

[Backtobanks]

My point about trading Schwarber (and Russell) back when they had trade value was based on the fact that they were both easily replaced while giving us solid ML pitching (or top pitching prospects). Schwarber always has been the epitome of a DH in a league that doesn't use a DH. Russell's obvious replacement was Baez who moved off of SS for Russell. Finding a replacement LF and 2B from Zobrist, Happ, LaStella, Bote, or a FA would have been rather easy.

[Cubswin11]

My point about trading Schwarber (and Russell) back when they had trade value was based on the fact that they were both easily replaced while giving us solid ML pitching (or top pitching prospects). Schwarber always has been the epitome of a DH in a league that doesn't use a DH. Russell's obvious replacement was Baez who moved off of SS for Russell. Finding a replacement LF and 2B from Zobrist, Happ, LaStella, Bote, or a FA would have been rather easy.

Even if the defensive numbers were off last year, Schwarber isn’t a “DH only” anymore in LF. He’s completely fine if not a little above average out there.

[Backtobanks]

My point about trading Schwarber (and Russell) back when they had trade value was based on the fact that they were both easily replaced while giving us solid ML pitching (or top pitching prospects). Schwarber always has been the epitome of a DH in a league that doesn't use a DH. Russell's obvious replacement was Baez who moved off of SS for Russell. Finding a replacement LF and 2B from Zobrist, Happ, LaStella, Bote, or a FA would have been rather easy.

Even if the defensive numbers were off last year, Schwarber isn’t a “DH only” anymore in LF. He’s completely fine if not a little above average out there.

 

 

With DH in the NL, he probably wouldn't be playing the field. As trade bait to the AL, I would think most teams would consider him a DH unless they already had a DH that couldn't play the field.

[Cubswin11]

My point about trading Schwarber (and Russell) back when they had trade value was based on the fact that they were both easily replaced while giving us solid ML pitching (or top pitching prospects). Schwarber always has been the epitome of a DH in a league that doesn't use a DH. Russell's obvious replacement was Baez who moved off of SS for Russell. Finding a replacement LF and 2B from Zobrist, Happ, LaStella, Bote, or a FA would have been rather easy.

Even if the defensive numbers were off last year, Schwarber isn’t a “DH only” anymore in LF. He’s completely fine if not a little above average out there.

 

 

With DH in the NL, he probably wouldn't be playing the field. As trade bait to the AL, I would think most teams would consider him a DH unless they already had a DH that couldn't play the field.

I’d hope when the NL DH comes we’d use it more like we use it when we’re in AL parks now. Use it to shuffle guys in and out and no true DH. Sure get a lefty or righty masher that really can’t play the field but it’s not like there’s 30 JD Martinez’s, Khris Davis’s, etc out there. Use it to have a more flexible roster and keep guys fresh.

[squally1313]

My point about trading Schwarber (and Russell) back when they had trade value was based on the fact that they were both easily replaced while giving us solid ML pitching (or top pitching prospects). Schwarber always has been the epitome of a DH in a league that doesn't use a DH. Russell's obvious replacement was Baez who moved off of SS for Russell. Finding a replacement LF and 2B from Zobrist, Happ, LaStella, Bote, or a FA would have been rather easy.

 

You're going to need to get a lot more specific in terms of timing if you're going to keep tooting your own horn on this. When exactly did you want these trades to be made?

 

If you trade Schwarber and Russell, you're giving Zobrist a full time job at either second base or left field. A full time set job for a guy in his late 30s who draws a lot of value from his positional versatility. This also means that it becomes much harder to hide Heyward the last couple years as he struggled to be a replacement level player. You can't sit Heyward for Zobrist against lefties if you need Zobrist to play second or left. Of those remaining players you named, who of Happ, LaStella, and Bote did you want to give full time ABs to going into 2017? Ian Happ had just got done throwing up a .318 OBP in AA. David Bote had a good year in high A, and got a cup of coffee in AAA as a reward. He spent all of 2017 in AA. Tommy LaStella? Lol ok.

 

I know this is where you point random free agent X that turned out to be a great deal as a way to retroactively solve all our problems. But let's not pretend like this grand solution was sitting there, obvious to you but not Theo, at the time.

[Sammy Sofa]

When we're able to sadly boil it down in hindsight as that the Cubs were saddled with a bizarrely terrible Heyward for multiple years, and were limited to only replacing someone like Schwarber internally, yeah, it looks like they effectively had no choice. That is not, however, the ideal way we were expecting this org to be able to roll with these type of punches. One would think/hope that trading Schwarber after, say, last year, wouldn't actually be this potentially critical blow that they can't cover up or recover from. But, sadly...here we are.

[squally1313]

When we're able to sadly boil it down in hindsight as that the Cubs were saddled with a bizarrely terrible Heyward for multiple years, and were limited to only replacing someone like Schwarber internally, yeah, it looks like they effectively had no choice. That is not, however, the ideal way we were expecting this org to be able to roll with these type of punches. One would think/hope that trading Schwarber after, say, last year, wouldn't actually be this potentially critical blow that they can't cover up or recover from. But, sadly...here we are.

 

I know you're already at the point of (somewhat bizarrely) shrugging this off, so I'm not sure why I'm even making this point again, but we've made the playoffs the last 4 years, have won the most games in baseball over that time, and are all of 3 games back with the best run differential in the division on all of April 18th.

[Sammy Sofa]

And I would prefer for them to be even better. I am a fancy lad, and I demand fancy things. An OF of turds does not please me.

[ConstableRabbit]

When we're able to sadly boil it down in hindsight as that the Cubs were saddled with a bizarrely terrible Heyward for multiple years, and were limited to only replacing someone like Schwarber internally, yeah, it looks like they effectively had no choice. That is not, however, the ideal way we were expecting this org to be able to roll with these type of punches. One would think/hope that trading Schwarber after, say, last year, wouldn't actually be this potentially critical blow that they can't cover up or recover from. But, sadly...here we are.

I mean, yeah, it sucks when you spend a shitton of money to sign a 26 year old gold glove defender who'd averaged over 4 WAR per season for 6 years prior and he turns into Billy Hamilton at the plate. Despite him ranging from unimpressive to outright terrible the Cubs still played close to .600 baseball over his first 3 years and won a WS. But I guess they could have somehow rolled with this type of punch better and won more?

[Sammy Sofa]

But I guess they could have somehow rolled with this type of punch better and won more?

 

Yes!

[Backtobanks]

My point about trading Schwarber (and Russell) back when they had trade value was based on the fact that they were both easily replaced while giving us solid ML pitching (or top pitching prospects). Schwarber always has been the epitome of a DH in a league that doesn't use a DH. Russell's obvious replacement was Baez who moved off of SS for Russell. Finding a replacement LF and 2B from Zobrist, Happ, LaStella, Bote, or a FA would have been rather easy.

 

You're going to need to get a lot more specific in terms of timing if you're going to keep tooting your own horn on this. When exactly did you want these trades to be made?

 

If you trade Schwarber and Russell, you're giving Zobrist a full time job at either second base or left field. A full time set job for a guy in his late 30s who draws a lot of value from his positional versatility. This also means that it becomes much harder to hide Heyward the last couple years as he struggled to be a replacement level player. You can't sit Heyward for Zobrist against lefties if you need Zobrist to play second or left. Of those remaining players you named, who of Happ, LaStella, and Bote did you want to give full time ABs to going into 2017? Ian Happ had just got done throwing up a .318 OBP in AA. David Bote had a good year in high A, and got a cup of coffee in AAA as a reward. He spent all of 2017 in AA. Tommy LaStella? Lol ok.

 

I know this is where you point random free agent X that turned out to be a great deal as a way to retroactively solve all our problems. But let's not pretend like this grand solution was sitting there, obvious to you but not Theo, at the time.

 

 

How about 2017 when Schwarber has a hero and Russell was still considered a top draft pick. Hell, Schwarber still could have been valuable (Braves, Indians, etc.) this past offseason until Theo announced he was unavailable. As I said before, it was obvious from day one that Schwarber was born to be a DH and Russell was going to be replaced by Baez. The players that I named were internal possibilities, but there were plenty of external trade possibilities or FAs in the last two years that could have filled those two spots.

[Sammy Sofa]

As I said before, it was obvious from day one that Schwarber was born to be a DH and Russell was going to be replaced by Baez.

 

Citations needed.

[squally1313]

My point about trading Schwarber (and Russell) back when they had trade value was based on the fact that they were both easily replaced while giving us solid ML pitching (or top pitching prospects). Schwarber always has been the epitome of a DH in a league that doesn't use a DH. Russell's obvious replacement was Baez who moved off of SS for Russell. Finding a replacement LF and 2B from Zobrist, Happ, LaStella, Bote, or a FA would have been rather easy.

 

You're going to need to get a lot more specific in terms of timing if you're going to keep tooting your own horn on this. When exactly did you want these trades to be made?

 

If you trade Schwarber and Russell, you're giving Zobrist a full time job at either second base or left field. A full time set job for a guy in his late 30s who draws a lot of value from his positional versatility. This also means that it becomes much harder to hide Heyward the last couple years as he struggled to be a replacement level player. You can't sit Heyward for Zobrist against lefties if you need Zobrist to play second or left. Of those remaining players you named, who of Happ, LaStella, and Bote did you want to give full time ABs to going into 2017? Ian Happ had just got done throwing up a .318 OBP in AA. David Bote had a good year in high A, and got a cup of coffee in AAA as a reward. He spent all of 2017 in AA. Tommy LaStella? Lol ok.

 

I know this is where you point random free agent X that turned out to be a great deal as a way to retroactively solve all our problems. But let's not pretend like this grand solution was sitting there, obvious to you but not Theo, at the time.

 

 

How about 2017 when Schwarber has a hero and Russell was still considered a top draft pick. Hell, Schwarber still could have been valuable (Braves, Indians, etc.) this past offseason until Theo announced he was unavailable. As I said before, it was obvious from day one that Schwarber was born to be a DH and Russell was going to be replaced by Baez. The players that I named were internal possibilities, but there were plenty of external trade possibilities or FAs in the last two years that could have filled those two spots.

 

I used 2017 as my example to clearly show none of the internal options were ready that year besides Seal Boy. Or did you mean you wanted to trade Schwarber after 2017, which was a clear step back from 2015 and what he showed in the 2016 World Series? That's clearly not the selling high everyone was talking about.

 

And please define 'day one'. Was it when Baez was so bad after he got called up that he basically spent the whole next year in the minors? Was it when Schwarber was drafted as a catcher? Was it when he came in 6th in FG defense in 2017 out of 24 left fielders, or when he came in 3rd in 2018 out of 31?

 

Again, you can fall back on 'well we could have just traded for someone, obviously' (trade who?) or 'yeah, in hindsight Player X would have been a lot better'. But stop pretending this was some huge mistake made.

[squally1313]

Schwarber could have still been valuable to the Braves and also it's obvious since day one that Schwarber is a DH. Those two opinions, back to back, definitely don't contradict at all.