Cubs offseason chit chat...

[Rcal10]

56 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

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. 

You make a lot of good points. When your post like this I appreciate your POV. That said, there is a price where a team will trade with the Cubs. Doesn’t even have to be prospect for proven talent. Just as an example, why not something built around Morel for a 3rd baseman? Again, just as an example, Morel for Burger. Similar players. Similar control left. But Burger can play 3rd. Maybe a little below average but he has played the position. Then sign JD Martinez to DH. Does that improve the team?

Maybe Morel for Naylor and then put Busch at 3rd and sign JD Martinez. Does that improve the team? If the Cubs wanted to do Morel for Naylor MAYBE it gets added to and they get Bieber too. Maybe they add Assad, or whatever else if needed. It certainly won’t deplete the farm.  If Busch can play 3rd isn’t that a better team than what they have now? Are those Guardian trades ridiculous either way? 

[Backtobanks]

3 hours ago, Tim said:

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

My point is that all of these sites are predictions based on some data that may or may not be accurate.  I can't see how a guy who has never pitched in the ML (Imanaga) can be comparable to Steele and the same with PCA w ho will probably start in Iowa compares to Suzuki,

[squally1313]

1 hour ago, Rcal10 said:

You make a lot of good points. When your post like this I appreciate your POV. That said, there is a price where a team will trade with the Cubs. Doesn’t even have to be prospect for proven talent. Just as an example, why not something built around Morel for a 3rd baseman? Again, just as an example, Morel for Burger. Similar players. Similar control left. But Burger can play 3rd. Maybe a little below average but he has played the position. Then sign JD Martinez to DH. Does that improve the team?

Maybe Morel for Naylor and then put Busch at 3rd and sign JD Martinez. Does that improve the team? If the Cubs wanted to do Morel for Naylor MAYBE it gets added to and they get Bieber too. Maybe they add Assad, or whatever else if needed. It certainly won’t deplete the farm.  If Busch can play 3rd isn’t that a better team than what they have now? Are those Guardian trades ridiculous either way? 

But that Burger paragraph is my earlier point. He’s got 5 years of team control. What possible motivation does anyone have to trade him, as a team that was trading for talent at the deadline last year.  And I know, ‘just an example’. But, there’s like a handful of third basemen that represent a clear upgrade to our third base situation. You can go through all of them. There’s nothing there. 

[Bertz]

25 minutes ago, Backtobanks said:

My point is that all of these sites are predictions based on some data that may or may not be accurate.  I can't see how a guy who has never pitched in the ML (Imanaga) can be comparable to Steele and the same with PCA w ho will probably start in Iowa compares to Suzuki,

They weren't playing in MLB but it's not like they were playing on Mars.

[Jason Ross]

1 hour ago, Rcal10 said:

You make a lot of good points. When your post like this I appreciate your POV. That said, there is a price where a team will trade with the Cubs. Doesn’t even have to be prospect for proven talent. Just as an example, why not something built around Morel for a 3rd baseman? Again, just as an example, Morel for Burger. Similar players. Similar control left. But Burger can play 3rd. Maybe a little below average but he has played the position. Then sign JD Martinez to DH. Does that improve the team?

Maybe Morel for Naylor and then put Busch at 3rd and sign JD Martinez. Does that improve the team? If the Cubs wanted to do Morel for Naylor MAYBE it gets added to and they get Bieber too. Maybe they add Assad, or whatever else if needed. It certainly won’t deplete the farm.  If Busch can play 3rd isn’t that a better team than what they have now? Are those Guardian trades ridiculous either way? 

I'm not sure Jake Burger is any more capable of playing third than Christopher Morel is. He was a -7 DRS in 850 innings last year, a -8 OAA, and in the bottom 3% of all OAA range factor. The Marlins gave him latitude to play third base, more so than the Cubs gave Morel, but I think Burger is a 1b/DH more than I think he's a real third baseman. 

I do agree in principal that I think there are probably some trades that the Cubs can make and probably should have overall. They're getting close to "hoarding" levels and while depth is good there is such a thing as "too much" (when we talk about options, 40 man slots, etc...). I'd really like to see the Cubs make a large deal. I can't say whom that is right now...I think a lot of trades are of the "off the radar" types and it's just so hard to predict what one team would think of prospect X, Y and Z versus another. 

Hopefully around the deadline (which seems like the most likely trade time) the Cubs can start to consolidate some of the excess into a trade.

[Rob]

Yeah, I have essentially zero interest in Jake Burger.

We've got a smattering of major league caliber players who make up a bizarre platoon, but it's looking like a reasonably effective one. Meanwhile, Burger can hit, but he can't field worth a damn. Ultimately, our platoon is projected to give us just as much production as the Marlins get from Burger.

There's some value to be had in condensing all of that production into a single roster spot, but it's not worth the likely cost.

[Rcal10]

1 hour ago, squally1313 said:

But that Burger paragraph is my earlier point. He’s got 5 years of team control. What possible motivation does anyone have to trade him, as a team that was trading for talent at the deadline last year.  And I know, ‘just an example’. But, there’s like a handful of third basemen that represent a clear upgrade to our third base situation. You can go through all of them. There’s nothing there. 

For Morel. You can’t tell me you know who they value more, Morel or Burger. I am not suggesting trading minor league talent for him. I am talking about an old fashion baseball trade where those two guys are the main pieces. And if Burger is so much more valuable the Cubs can sweeten the deal a little, wouldn’t take much. They are close. I also gave other examples where Busch moved to this. Fine if you don’t like it. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t something they can do. 

[Rcal10]

55 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

I do agree in principal that I think there are probably some trades that the Cubs can make and probably should have overall. They're getting close to "hoarding" levels and while depth is good there is such a thing as "too much" (when we talk about options, 40 man slots, etc...). I'd really like to see the Cubs make a large deal. I can't say whom that is right now...I think a lot of trades are of the "off the radar" types and it's just so hard to predict what one team would think of prospect X, Y and Z versus another. 

Hopefully around the deadline (which seems like the most likely trade time) the Cubs can start to consolidate some of the excess into a trade.

This is reeally all I am saying 1908. But every time I suggest that squally challenges me to put an actual trade together so he, or others can criticize it. And just as I told him earlier, when a trade is out out there you get one post suggesting a team wouldn’t do that, which he did when he asked why the Marlins would do that, and then another post suggesting the Cubs shouldn’t do that. Which also happened. Seems according to him there is nothing Jed can do via trade. But I do agree with you. I would like to see a big deal made. 

[Tim]

Do you think that the Cubs FO hasn't engaged in talks? There have been very few trades around baseball all winter long. You keep saying that the deals are out there...but nobody is making them. 

[Rcal10]

7 minutes ago, Tim said:

Do you think that the Cubs FO hasn't engaged in talks? There have been very few trades around baseball all winter long. You keep saying that the deals are out there...but nobody is making them. 

Wasn’t the report that the Cubs were expected to be the most active team after the new year? What does that mean? I doubt it meant signing free agents ONLY. I guess to me that meant it was known they had things in the works and ready to start pulling the trigger a bit. Since that time they signed a pen arm. So much for active. 
 

[squally1313]

30 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Wasn’t the report that the Cubs were expected to be the most active team after the new year? What does that mean? I doubt it meant signing free agents ONLY. I guess to me that meant it was known they had things in the works and ready to start pulling the trigger a bit. Since that time they signed a pen arm. So much for active. 
 

I feel like you always think I'm attacking you, and I'm not, but I do think you jump onto all these 'reports' as like, the Truth and then use that to fuel your disappoint/frustration when nothing happens (to Tim's point, across all of baseball). These guys have to fill column space/air time/tweets quotas/etc. It's maybe 20% info from reliable insiders and 80% speculation. It's really no different to me than Bertz and 1908 looking at the org as a whole and being like 'this current set up really lends itself to some trades'. Solid opinion, totally see where they're coming from. But it doesn't actually mean anything is coming. If there were quality players out with years of control on the market, there would be roughly 20 teams trying to put packages together for them, not just the Cubs. 

[squally1313]

1 hour ago, Rcal10 said:

This is reeally all I am saying 1908. But every time I suggest that squally challenges me to put an actual trade together so he, or others can criticize it. And just as I told him earlier, when a trade is out out there you get one post suggesting a team wouldn’t do that, which he did when he asked why the Marlins would do that, and then another post suggesting the Cubs shouldn’t do that. Which also happened. Seems according to him there is nothing Jed can do via trade. But I do agree with you. I would like to see a big deal made. 

The answer to this, in my opinion, is that's really hard to get people to believe that a GM would give up years of control in a quality, established major league player in a league where 14 teams make the playoffs and team control years are so cheap, unless they are completely blown away by the quality and/or quantity of the prospects offered, and no one wants to put together those kinds of trades here. 

[Rcal10]

19 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

I feel like you always think I'm attacking you, and I'm not, but I do think you jump onto all these 'reports' as like, the Truth and then use that to fuel your disappoint/frustration when nothing happens (to Tim's point, across all of baseball). These guys have to fill column space/air time/tweets quotas/etc. It's maybe 20% info from reliable insiders and 80% speculation. It's really no different to me than Bertz and 1908 looking at the org as a whole and being like 'this current set up really lends itself to some trades'. Solid opinion, totally see where they're coming from. But it doesn't actually mean anything is coming. If there were quality players out with years of control on the market, there would be roughly 20 teams trying to put packages together for them, not just the Cubs. 

The thing is I am not frustrated. I am just making conversation. I get frustrated when you jump in and defend Jed as if I am attacking him. I am not. As I have said in numerous occasions I think he does a decent job with what I believe the FO allows him to work with. I do just wish he was a bit more aggressive and got some deals done. I am only suggesting I would like to see the Cubs take some of their excess assets )this could mean major league players as well) and turn them into a quality major league talent, at a position of need, in a trade. Basically no different than what 1908 said.

And yes, at times you do take my words and spin them so that you can make some sort of smartass comment. For the most part you don’t do that, but when you do, it takes a bit for me to start having honest, non combative conversation with you again. 

I am more than happy to talk baseball with you. We just don’t agree with the plan for this year. I am fine with that. I understand and respect your reasoning. I, on the other hand, hope he can put something together (as 1908 said- a big trade) to improve the team. I am not so worried about losing assets. I also realize that is not as easy as it sounds.

[Rcal10]

29 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

The answer to this, in my opinion, is that's really hard to get people to believe that a GM would give up years of control in a quality, established major league player in a league where 14 teams make the playoffs and team control years are so cheap, unless they are completely blown away by the quality and/or quantity of the prospects offered, and no one wants to put together those kinds of trades here. 

Ok, fair. But I suggested Morel twice. He is also a quality major league talent with years of control left. Why not our young controlled player for your young controlled player? Doesn’t that potentially help the team? 
I find it funny that I mentioned Burger for Morel and you said why would the Marlins trade Burger. And yet two other people said they have little to no interest in Burger. Exactly what I said happens when a trade is suggested. 
 

Leaving that one alone, doesn’t Morel and Wisneski or Assad for Naylor and Bieber (add small pieces either way) help the Cubs if they then sign JD Martinez? Busch then plays 3rd. Guardians have a 1st baseman ready to be in the majors and lose Bieber in a year. Is that such a bad deal for them? Morel has more control time left than Naylor. 
 

Are they fair enough to talk about? I like Morel, tbh. I would rather not trade him. But if he can’t play 3rd that ties the Cubs hands in bringing in a bat like Martinez. I do like a team with Naylor and Martinez in the line up over Morel and Madrigal. 
 

Now, if Morel can play 3rd, just sign JD. I am happy with that. 

[Backtobanks]

3 hours ago, Bertz said:

They weren't playing in MLB but it's not like they were playing on Mars.

Playing at Iowa or Tennessee isn't Mars either, but it's not a great way to predict ML success.

[squally1313]

42 minutes ago, Backtobanks said:

Playing at Iowa or Tennessee isn't Mars either, but it's not a great way to predict ML success.

It’s actually a pretty reliable way to predict ML success. Or do you think we should discard all minor league numbers?

[Jason Ross]

44 minutes ago, Backtobanks said:

Playing at Iowa or Tennessee isn't Mars either, but it's not a great way to predict ML success.

ZiPS is pretty good at using the right metrics. We know there are certain metrics that correlate from MilB to the MLB. For example: contact% is a really good predictor, one of the absolute best, from Triple-A to the MLB. Hitters who make contact a lot in Triple-A generally make a lot of contact the MLB. Same with things like pitchers who get groundballs; they keep getting them. 

There are ways to take MiLB data and use it to predict the MLB. Is it exact? Certainly not; no projection is. But you can make pretty solid guesswork from MiLB data.

Here's a study fangraphs did from 2019 looking at what hitting data correlates to MLB data strongest. There's a link within the article that will show you the pitching side of things as well.

Here is another article looking at hitting correlation between MiLB and the MLB

And from the same source as the previous, the companion piece on pitching

These studies are from 2019 and 2020, but considering how much data needs to go into these studies, a few years isn't going to change this. 

[Stratos]

31 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

ZiPS is pretty good at using the right metrics. We know there are certain metrics that correlate from MilB to the MLB. For example: contact% is a really good predictor, one of the absolute best, from Triple-A to the MLB. Hitters who make contact a lot in Triple-A generally make a lot of contact the MLB. Same with things like pitchers who get groundballs; they keep getting them. 

There are ways to take MiLB data and use it to predict the MLB. Is it exact? Certainly not; no projection is. But you can make pretty solid guesswork from MiLB data.

Here's a study fangraphs did from 2019 looking at what hitting data correlates to MLB data strongest. There's a link within the article that will show you the pitching side of things as well.

Here is another article looking at hitting correlation between MiLB and the MLB

And from the same source as the previous, the companion piece on pitching

These studies are from 2019 and 2020, but considering how much data needs to go into these studies, a few years isn't going to change this. 

Nice links.  There's got to be some kind of formula model that teams use to try to get a ballpark prediction of minors to MLB conversion.

[Jason Ross]

17 minutes ago, Stratos said:

Nice links.  There's got to be some kind of formula model that teams use to try to get a ballpark prediction of minors to MLB conversion.

There are some MiLB to MLB calculators out there, but I'm never sure how much I feel confident in them, especially wondering how much emphasis they put on specific data points like those in the articles. ZiPS does projections (and I am very strongly of belief that they take those data points into account...and more...because the low-level players they predict to be good generally have strong bat to ball, for example). Anecdotally I remember ZiPS pointing to Isaac Parades, when he was just in Low-A with the Cubs as a real breakout prospect. 

[Tryptamine]

43 minutes ago, The20thK said:

Man the season can’t get started soon enough… the last few days on here have been ROOOOOUUUGGGHHHH! 

If the season started today, I'd watch about 5 games this season.

[Backtobanks]

12 hours ago, squally1313 said:

It’s actually a pretty reliable way to predict ML success. Or do you think we should discard all minor league numbers?

No it's not.  There are many examples of players who did great in the minors and never made it to the ML.  I don't think you should discard minor league numbers, but they should be used to give the player a chance to prove himself at the ML level and not some prediction as to what they will do in the ML.

[Tim]

7 hours ago, Tryptamine said:

If the season started today, I'd watch about 5 games this season.

I don't get this. This team has:

• A legit Cy Young contender from last season looking to build on that performance
• An absolutely joyful dude to loves to play and hit dongs
• Three huge ROY candidates at SP, 1B and CF
• Zero legit bad positions on the entire field or on the mound

There is plenty to watch and be excited about out there.

[thawv]

22 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

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. 

Looking back, I think that you're right.  They would just lose them after 4 years instead of 6 years. 

I failed to mention the other part of my thought.  The league should require the teams that profit from revenue sharing to spend those profits, or it goes back in to the profit sharing pool.  They should not be able to profit 150 million of revenue sharing, and have a 90 million dollar.  If they do, they don't get to keep the extra 60 million.  I think that this would force more competitiveness, and it would also be more likely that teams would extend their younger players.  Now with younger players are getting paid much more money during their prime years, and the small market team are forced to field a better team.  Which is supposedly the whole reason to give them money. 

[Jason Ross]

1 hour ago, Backtobanks said:

No it's not.  There are many examples of players who did great in the minors and never made it to the ML.  I don't think you should discard minor league numbers, but they should be used to give the player a chance to prove himself at the ML level and not some prediction as to what they will do in the ML.

While fair, many of these players had issues that hid below the "numbers"  that people used to prognosticate greatness. For example, sometimes there are players who's "numbers" look good on the overall, but swing and miss well too much. They may even have good K% in the MiLB, but process wise, swing far too often. Perhaps a player has good numbers in Double-A but once they reach higher levels they simply can't process fast enough against MLB pitching. Or maybe they struggle with velocity up, and pitchers at Triple-A or the MLB are far more capable of exploiting that weakness. There are many things that can hide in plain sight. 

As well, you can find any anecdotal evidence you want, so we can play this game with any number of prospects. Projection systems would never claim themselves to be able to project at any specific percentage or claim to be perfect. But too often people use the anecdotal to ignore the trends. If you look back at the links I provided in my other response, you'll see there are data points that correlate, quite highly, to the MLB. I'm quite confident, without knowing the specific recipe, of something like ZiPS, that they're using this data as a basis of their yearly projections. 

There's a good middle ground: there's no reason to swear off projection systems as pseudosciences while also knowing their limitations (which is what they are capable of using as input data). There are always variables, age, injury, mentals...that can't be accounted for in a full analytical way, too. They're a good guide book. For example, if ZiPS thinks a player in Double-A is going to be better than industry lists do; it's worth noting them and keeping an eye on them., Conversely, if people are high on a kid in Triple-A but ZiPS isn't...maybe there's some extra investigation worth doing as to figure out why that is.  

[Derwood]

Clearly no one writers know about this team or division. I have read back-to-back articles, the first of which says "Cubs lucky to break .500 in 2024" and the next saying "Cubs favorites to win NL Central".

It's "everyone be guessin'" season on Twitter