Cubs offseason chit chat...

[Jason Ross]

37 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

So the Cubs still have Perlaza? I don’t think he is on the team any longer. 

He signed a two year contract in Korea as he was an MiLB free agent. 

[Rob]

Given our earlier discussions, I'd like to mention that fangraphs just posted full zips projected standings. Had the Cubs at 81 wins. Lower than Szymborski had suggested.

[Stratos]

3 hours ago, squally1313 said:

Yeah....Bummer, Suarez has an option of some sort. Caleb Ferguson? Those types of trades just aren't really happening, rough theory is that the additional playoff spots mean there are less teams looking at a 'tear down to the studs' rebuilding path and trading quality players with years of affordable control holds even less appeal. 

Interesting is that a lot of the best prospects and young players are getting extended at early ages now so getting stars in their prime in FA is eventually going to be much harder.  This will change the way many teams will build teams.  Good prospects probably become even more valuable.

[squally1313]

27 minutes ago, Stratos said:

Interesting is that a lot of the best prospects and young players are getting extended at early ages now so getting stars in their prime in FA is eventually going to be much harder.  This will change the way many teams will build teams.  Good prospects probably become even more valuable.

Yeah and two other things for me:

1. Both in absolute value (as yearly FA salaries have gone up) and in perceptive value (FOs getting smarter, less attached to dumb ideals), the 6 years of cost suppressed control have never been considered more valuable. It’s really an absurd system and probably should be shortened. 
2. Related: development systems have never been better, and these kids are, a lot of the time, getting to the majors as finished products. Carroll was the best player on a World Series team, rutschman, Henderson, KB, etc. These top prospects can contribute immediately, which reduces the desire for contending teams to want to sell them to fit a current contending window. 

[Bull]

11 hours ago, squally1313 said:

Yeah and two other things for me:

1. Both in absolute value (as yearly FA salaries have gone up) and in perceptive value (FOs getting smarter, less attached to dumb ideals), the 6 years of cost suppressed control have never been considered more valuable. It’s really an absurd system and probably should be shortened. 
2. Related: development systems have never been better, and these kids are, a lot of the time, getting to the majors as finished products. Carroll was the best player on a World Series team, rutschman, Henderson, KB, etc. These top prospects can contribute immediately, which reduces the desire for contending teams to want to sell them to fit a current contending window. 

Part of this is the additional benefit of having them in their prime when they are most athletic. Prime has moved younger because of the better development systems you describe. Lock them up through age 30 when they 'lose a step' and are now past prime. You get the added benefit of speed both on the basepaths and in the field. Rule changes have made this even more valuable.

Monster contracts after 30 will become rarer.

The game is changing and the rule changes benefit young players and thus owners. This is what we are seeing this offseason.

Because of this there will be an adjustment to the "years of control" and arb process in the next CBA. "You value younger players more? Then pay them!"

Edited February 10, 2024 by Bull

[Rcal10]

13 hours ago, squally1313 said:

Internal improvement? You said yourself earlier, and I'll quote so I don't put words in your mouth, 'usually guys don’t come up and are great their first year'. These guys will get better. We've got a pretty large handful of guys who's 80% projection is significantly better performance, at significantly lower cost, than any of the Boras dudes out there or any of the names that have come up as trade targets. Of course they won't all work out. They especially all won't work out for the Cubs if you trade them away or block them with long term free agent signings. But, in my opinion, there's no path to dominance without developing elite, controlled talent. 

Again, what are these trades? What teams are shopping difference makers with years of control for outfielders in AA? Absolutely willing to entertain the conversation, but not going to do the work for you. 

So by internal improvement with the reality that when guys first come up are you suggesting they don’t compete to win in 24’ and only win when internally they get better? We both agreed it could take  few years for guys to be their best. I am fine with some guys coming up and the 26-27 team being awesome. But IMO they can also supplement the 24 team with a trade or two using a few of the prospects they have. They are not all going to play for the Cubs. There just isn’t enough room. As for trades, I am not going to make up offers. That turns into some suggesting there is no way the Cubs should give that up, why would the other team trade that guy, that is not enough for that guy, etc… But according to reports during the off season there have been plenty of guys available. Alonso, Polanco, Glasnow, Bieber, Naylor, Clase, Jansen, Tucker, Bregman, JD Davis, Bichette, Kim, Cease, Robert, Burnes, Soto, Cabrera, Luzardo, etc….. I am sure there are others who are available that we don’t know about. They got Busch in a deal and no one saw that coming. 

Now maybe trades are hard to make. Maybe teams are asking for a ridiculous haul. Could be because of what you suggested in your latest post, teams are holding onto guys. Some of those guys might not be worth what it would take and some may not be really available. 

I just don’t think I have been Hoyer bashing when suggesting I would like to see more done. I have not freaked out when I suggest I would like to see him more aggressive. I have also liked some things he has done and said so. I don’t think he is a terrible GM. But IMO his hands a tied somewhat by the FO. But I think he has this job because he does the job like the FO wants him too. My only complaint, and this is also with the FO, is I would like to see the Cubs act like a large market team. Maybe get a guy even if it isn’t a value signing. And maybe they will do that next year with Soto. But I have serious doubts they will. 

I still believe when the 24’ season starts they Cubs will look like an 85+ win team, or better. I still believe they will do something more. I only suggested if it is not getting one of the Boras guys it will have to be via a trade. 

[Rcal10]

12 minutes ago, Bull said:

Part of this is the additional benefit of having them in their prime when they are most athletic. Prime has moved younger because of the better development systems you describe. Lock them up through age 30 when they 'lose a step' and are now past prime. You get the added benefit of speed both on the basepaths and in the field. Rule changes have made this even more valuable.

Monster contracts after 30 will become rarer.

The game is changing and the rule changes benefit young players and thus owners. This is what we are seeing this offseason.

Because of this there will be an adjustment to the "years of control" and arb process in the next CBA. "You value younger players more? Then pay them!"

That is the problem. The system is backwards. When they are playing their best they aren’t getting paid the most. But if you shorten control time you hurt the low revenue teams. If a team can only have a guy for 4 years before free agency, the low revenue teams lose stars earlier. I don’t see that as a good thing. Widens the competitive gap. Honestly, I don’t have an answer. But I am pretty sure most owners will not like the idea of lowering the years of control of a player. 

[thawv]

27 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

That is the problem. The system is backwards. When they are playing their best they aren’t getting paid the most. But if you shorten control time you hurt the low revenue teams. If a team can only have a guy for 4 years before free agency, the low revenue teams lose stars earlier. I don’t see that as a good thing. Widens the competitive gap. Honestly, I don’t have an answer. But I am pretty sure most owners will not like the idea of lowering the years of control of a player. 

Every team is receiving about 200 million in revenue sharing.  The low revenue teams are profiting from the system, and the high revenue teams are losing money from the system.  Knowing that they are going to lose them after 4 years instead of 6 years, may force them to spend some of that free money instead of pocketing the free money.  Start giving out extensions with that money.  It's a shame that there are teams that profit more than their payroll is. 

Edited February 10, 2024 by thawv

[LBiittner]

14 hours ago, Rob said:

Given our earlier discussions, I'd like to mention that fangraphs just posted full zips projected standings. Had the Cubs at 81 wins. Lower than Szymborski had suggested.

Haha, ain't no better than PECOTA

[Rob]

22 minutes ago, LBiittner said:

Haha, ain't no better than PECOTA

I mean, ZiPS is still generally more accurate as a projection system...

But for those looking for hope, these systems do tend to underrate teams with great depth. That's one of the reasons the Rays tend to outperform every year -- when the full gamut of injuries eventually do strike, they usually manage to alter their roster alignment in a way as to minimize the damage.

While I don't mean to imply that the Cubs innately have depth in the same vein as the Rays, we do have an incredibly deep farm system. A good chunk of those are in AA or AAA, and for those positions where we lack a potential impact bat, we should still have the pieces necessary to trade for one -- the problem is simply that impact pieces might not be available when we need them. Might have to tough it out until closer to the deadline.

[Rcal10]

50 minutes ago, thawv said:

Every team is receiving about 200 million in revenue sharing.  The low revenue teams are profiting from the system, and the high revenue teams are losing money from the system.  Knowing that they are going to lose them after 4 years instead of 6 years, may force them to spend some of that free money instead of pocketing the free money.  Start giving out extensions with that money.  It's a shame that there are teams that profit more than their payroll is. 

So by slanting it more towards the large revenue teams benefit, which we would agree lowering the year of control would do, you are favoring the large market teams more when they are now. Therefore widening the gap in competition between the large and all markets. Or, as you said, the low revenue teams would have to spend more money to try to compete. Considering they don’t do that now, why would they with a different system? Large market teams would just get guys earlier. I don’t see why a small market team would be ok with that. Remember, the owners have to vote on then rules they agree to. I don’t see that happening. 

[LBiittner]

33 minutes ago, Rob said:

I mean, ZiPS is still generally more accurate as a projection system...

But for those looking for hope, these systems do tend to underrate teams with great depth. That's one of the reasons the Rays tend to outperform every year -- when the full gamut of injuries eventually do strike, they usually manage to alter their roster alignment in a way as to minimize the damage.

While I don't mean to imply that the Cubs innately have depth in the same vein as the Rays, we do have an incredibly deep farm system. A good chunk of those are in AA or AAA, and for those positions where we lack a potential impact bat, we should still have the pieces necessary to trade for one -- the problem is simply that impact pieces might not be available when we need them. Might have to tough it out until closer to the deadline.

I feel You're 100% right.

Right now we wouldn't be considered even a wildcard contender as currently constructed. 

[Tim]

meh - people were even more down on the team going into last year. And they were probably a playoff team without having a manager that blew a few games on his own.

The club will improve by not giving away as many terrible at bats as they did in the first half last year. They'll improve by having better depth in the rotation and at the plate when injuries happen. They'll improve because some of the young guys *earn* their playing time.

[17 Seconds]

15 minutes ago, LBiittner said:

I feel You're 100% right.

Right now we wouldn't be considered even a wildcard contender as currently constructed. 

oh brother

[LBiittner]

Let me ask this question to someone who is fully engulfed in the baseball analytical world. I'm an old school baseball fan who grew up with the Wrigley's and their prejudices and their John Hollands and the peanut vendor annointed gm Salty Saltwell.

How does fangraph and zips predict wins, (please readers digest version so I can understand). 

For instance in a make believe world, say the Cubs and cards we estimated to each have 80 wins, and if the cards were to make believe signed an uninjured ohtani who hits and pitches in 2024, the Cards win estimation climbs dramatically.well over that 80 win mark now. Somewhere some how somebody's wins has to decrease in the division correct??? I mean these wins have to come from somebody else's expense? Since ohtani came from the AL does everyone in the NL lose a percentage in the win column? 

Please explain?

[Backtobanks]

16 hours ago, squally1313 said:

So in your scenario we traded for 2 first basemen and a third baseman, and still signed Imanaga after trading for Bieber. Assume with all these we'd be pretty comfortably into the luxury tax, which I think is pretty obviously not happening and not a Jed decision. Either way, here's my math on the 84 win number (FG has the Cubs as an 81 win team now, so the delta, plus I guess bench upgrades, got me to 84).  

The only 1B I traded for was Naylor.  Many of those projections look off to me (PCA comparable to Suzuki, Imanaga comparable to Steele, etc.), but I guess people believe whatever sites they choose.

[Tim]

Just now, Backtobanks said:

The only 1B I traded for was Naylor.  Many of those projections look off to me (PCA comparable to Suzuki, Imanaga comparable to Steele, etc.), but I guess people believe whatever sites they choose.

Pick a different site. It won't change the answer much.

[LBiittner]

1 minute ago, 17 Seconds said:

oh brother

In what world does 80 wins make a wildcard??

[17 Seconds]

Just now, LBiittner said:

In what world does 80 wins make a wildcard??

does 81 wins get you a wild card? probably not. but saying that a team projected for 81 wins isn't a wild card contender is absurd

[Tim]

Just now, LBiittner said:

In what world does 80 wins make a wildcard??

Even if you're leaving off the word "contender", you're also underselling the wins to be dramatic. Also you're ignoring the valid arguments about why the projections may be underestimating the team. 

So...yeah.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Projection system win totals are regressed, they represent everyone's middle of the road outcome and therefore the win totals are bunched lower than they will actually be in practice.  ZiPS projects the Cubs for 81 wins at the moment and has them missing the playoffs by 1 game, by extension ZiPS is saying there are many outcomes where the Cubs make the playoffs and that they are very much a wild card contender.

[Bertz]

I think there's four things to consider with the projected standings before wringing your hands too much:

1. The basis for playing time is the Fangraphs/BP generalized depth charts.  If the have something stupid not based in reality, like having Carlos Rodon slated to throw 157 innings, it can inflate/deflate a team's projected win total.  The ZiPS standings Dan Szymborski runs account for the probability of random injury, but as far as I know not the probability of a guy getting passed on the depth chart.  The daily updating standings on FG/BP are not dynamic at all

2.  Like Rob said, teams with depth tend to outperform the FG odds, because they are better able to withstand injury/underperformance and also they're more likely to have legitimate talent at the bottom of the depth chart that breaks out and earns playing time

3.  Projections are inherently conservative.  Real life will have a much much higher spread between teams and away from .500

4. The offseason isn't over.  Jed could get drunk tonight and add 8 wins to the team's bottom line with one really eventful phone call to Scott Boras.  While that's exceedingly unlikely, adding another ~3 wins seems likely and closer to 5 not totally out of bounds

Edited February 10, 2024 by Bertz

[LBiittner]

Thanks all

[squally1313]

2 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

So by internal improvement with the reality that when guys first come up are you suggesting they don’t compete to win in 24’ and only win when internally they get better? We both agreed it could take  few years for guys to be their best. I am fine with some guys coming up and the 26-27 team being awesome. But IMO they can also supplement the 24 team with a trade or two using a few of the prospects they have. They are not all going to play for the Cubs. There just isn’t enough room. As for trades, I am not going to make up offers. That turns into some suggesting there is no way the Cubs should give that up, why would the other team trade that guy, that is not enough for that guy, etc… But according to reports during the off season there have been plenty of guys available. Alonso, Polanco, Glasnow, Bieber, Naylor, Clase, Jansen, Tucker, Bregman, JD Davis, Bichette, Kim, Cease, Robert, Burnes, Soto, Cabrera, Luzardo, etc….. I am sure there are others who are available that we don’t know about. They got Busch in a deal and no one saw that coming. 

Now maybe trades are hard to make. Maybe teams are asking for a ridiculous haul. Could be because of what you suggested in your latest post, teams are holding onto guys. Some of those guys might not be worth what it would take and some may not be really available. 

I just don’t think I have been Hoyer bashing when suggesting I would like to see more done. I have not freaked out when I suggest I would like to see him more aggressive. I have also liked some things he has done and said so. I don’t think he is a terrible GM. But IMO his hands a tied somewhat by the FO. But I think he has this job because he does the job like the FO wants him too. My only complaint, and this is also with the FO, is I would like to see the Cubs act like a large market team. Maybe get a guy even if it isn’t a value signing. And maybe they will do that next year with Soto. But I have serious doubts they will. 

I still believe when the 24’ season starts they Cubs will look like an 85+ win team, or better. I still believe they will do something more. I only suggested if it is not getting one of the Boras guys it will have to be via a trade. 

I think ultimately I have two main points:

1. These types of trades are rare and difficult to make. Of the 18 names you listed, only 3 got traded here in basically the middle of February, and all of them only had one year of control left. That's not a Hoyer problem, that's every team not trading for these dudes. The Burnes trade is a good example, one year of a (very good) starter for basically a Matt Shaw/Assad package. Would you do it? I can see the argument: makes us the favorite in the division for this year, every year is valuable, etc. But still doesn't put us anywhere close to the Dodgers or Braves, and a year from now we'd be down Shaw, Assad, and Burnes. 

2. So if you accept that there just aren't trades happening for quality players with years of control, the only place to add that to your organization is the Boras four. All quality players, but really the only one with an 'elite' argument going forward is Snell, probably the guy we talk about the least on here. There's only so many times you can pay a market premium for non-elite talent before you hit a ceiling. You want a $65m outfield locked in where none of them are likely to exceed 4 WAR? Where you turn PCA, Alcantara, Caissie, etc into platoon guys or trade bait in the mold of Michael Busch, where everyone knew that the Dodgers didn't have a spot for him and we got to basically pick up a AAA top 100 dude for a single A top 100 dude? Like, ignore Ricketts and the luxury tax for a second and slot Bellinger, Chapman, and Montgomery into the roster on long term deals. That's a very solid, 88 win team. How does that team get better going forward? Where do we upgrade? Outside of unlimited budgets, it's almost impossible to become an elite team without your system turning out some studs. Jeopardizing that to turn 81 into 84 seems shortsighted. 

[CubinNY]

3 hours ago, Bull said:

Part of this is the additional benefit of having them in their prime when they are most athletic. Prime has moved younger because of the better development systems you describe. Lock them up through age 30 when they 'lose a step' and are now past prime. You get the added benefit of speed both on the basepaths and in the field. Rule changes have made this even more valuable.

Monster contracts after 30 will become rarer.

The game is changing and the rule changes benefit young players and thus owners. This is what we are seeing this offseason.

Because of this there will be an adjustment to the "years of control" and arb process in the next CBA. "You value younger players more? Then pay them!"

Except they don’t benefit young players