Cubs offseason chit chat...

[LBiittner]

5 minutes ago, Tim said:

The problem with any veteran willing to take a one year deal is that they provide almost as much risk (sometimes more) as the "unproven" rookie.

Like Neris?

[CubinNY]

3 minutes ago, Tim said:

The problem with any veteran willing to take a one year deal is that they provide almost as much risk (sometimes more) as the "unproven" rookie.

Yes, in general, and with a few exceptions, I'd rather give ABs to unproven players than to washed-up has-beens. You never know when you Dwight Smith your way to helping a team win a division or be in the wildcard. 

[SABR Gamer]

1 hour ago, CubinNY said:

https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHC/2023.shtml

Only replying here because you've ignored the several replies already made to this post. Are you not aware of where the Cubs' offense ranked last season in runs scored?

[Bertz]

25 minutes ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

You think Canario is enough to get Kim and another piece? I don't see that. 

Like Tim/1908 mentioned my wording was a little ambiguous  but I was saying the opposite.  Basically I don't see a big Kim trade with the Padres as likely at this stage, but I'd still like to do a smaller trade since we do IMO have a surplus of outfielders.

Hell, maybe even something like a reverse Busch trade where we get a more talented but inherently riskier A baller back for Canario. (or if we want to get WILD, Morel)

[CubinNY]

21 minutes ago, SABR Gamer said:

Only replying here because you've ignored the several replies already made to this post. Are you not aware of where the Cubs' offense ranked last season in runs scored?

Total runs scored is not a measure of consistency

[Rcal10]

53 minutes ago, Bertz said:

Like Tim/1908 mentioned my wording was a little ambiguous  but I was saying the opposite.  Basically I don't see a big Kim trade with the Padres as likely at this stage, but I'd still like to do a smaller trade since we do IMO have a surplus of outfielders.

Hell, maybe even something like a reverse Busch trade where we get a more talented but inherently riskier A baller back for Canario. (or if we want to get WILD, Morel)

I don’t see enough offense on this team to give up Morel unless the guy you get back can play 3rd. Then you can sign either Belt or JDM to replace Morels bat and the 3rd baseman yiu get for him replaces Madrigal or Wisdoms bat. And I don’t see that happening.

However, is Kim a free agent after this year? I thought I read he was. If he is, would Morel for one year of Kim make sense for both teams? Kim is clearly the better player, but Morel is young, has 5 years of control left and more of a sure thing than the Padres trading Kim for prospects. I honestly don’t know if either team would do that, but he does make sense for the Cubs in 24’. Obviously the Padres could just keep Kim and try competing next year. But I see them as the 4th best team in a division with a clear favorite. And if they still have money issues maybe this works for them. If Kim still has control I know this isn’t close to acceptable. 

Edited February 13, 2024 by Rcal10

[Derwood]

1 minute ago, CubinNY said:

Total runs scored is not a measure of consistency

[We Got The Whole 9]

8 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

Total runs scored is not a measure of consistency

We literally covered this a couple weeks ago. The Cubs offense was consistent with pretty much every top offense but the Braves. I think Atlanta was the only team in the MLB to have fewer than 60 games where the offense scored 3 or fewer runs. The Cubs were pretty much average in that respect.

[squally1313]

Man hopefully Counsell is an expert at telling these bums to save hits for the next game. 

[Hairyducked Idiot]

1 hour ago, squally1313 said:

Man hopefully Counsell is an expert at telling these bums to save hits for the next game. 

It's been almost 30 years since "sosa only hits home runs in blowouts" and sequencing flat earthers still won't give up. I'm tired boss.

[Backtobanks]

3 hours ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

It's very possible we don't. Those 2 players don't need to do a whole lot, the roster has a strong foundation you can rely on already. It's a lot different from asking 5-6 rookies to carry an offense. This is why I'm so amused at how fervently opposed to playing 2 rookies you are. You act like those players need to absolutely ball out or the team will have no shot at the division. The reality is that, if they could theoretically provide 4-5 WAR between them, it would be far better for the team than locking up one of the 2023 4 win players for 5-6+ years and 10% of the 'cap'. 

I don't think trusting 2 rookies to provide 4-5 WAR while your team is sitting on plenty of money and trade assets is the best plan for winning the division.  Then again, the division is so weak and Counsell is good enough that the Cubs certainly ought to "contend".

[We Got The Whole 9]

46 minutes ago, Backtobanks said:

I don't think trusting 2 rookies to provide 4-5 WAR while your team is sitting on plenty of money and trade assets is the best plan for winning the division.  Then again, the division is so weak and Counsell is good enough that the Cubs certainly ought to "contend".

If they don't win the division in 2024 it isn't the end of the world. Life will still be awesome. 

[SOFNR]

3 hours ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

If they don't win the division in 2024 it isn't the end of the world. Life will still be awesome. 

That's true for every single year in every single sport. It's a pretty dumb reason to give someone grief for wanting the Chicago Cubs to aim for better then low 80's wins. 

[Stratos]

9 hours ago, CubinNY said:

Total runs scored is not a measure of consistency

Cubs had a well above average offense during every month of 2023 besides May (ranked 25th in runs, peak Hosmer/Mervis/Mancini/Barnhart/Madrigal suckfest plus Bellinger hurt) and June (was just average).  Even in Sept/Oct they were 4th in runs scored.

Cubs had the 3rd best offense in MLB in the 2nd half (from July 1).  They were tied for 1st in the MLB over all of 2023 in baserunning runs, which was a big part of their game and doesn't show up in stats like wRC+.  Hopefully they run as well under Counsell as Ross.  Mike Napoli and Willie Harris are back so that should help the transition a lot.

[thawv]

18 hours ago, Backtobanks said:

With all of the optimistic views of PCA and Busch, why do we need anyone?  Of course, neither has any track record at the ML level.

No player in the history of baseball had a track record at the ML level before he became a ML player. 

[Backtobanks]

5 minutes ago, thawv said:

No player in the history of baseball had a track record at the ML level before he became a ML player. 

I'm well aware of that, but we will be in serious trouble if we spend the whole season floundering while trying to give them a ML track record.  There certainly could be a learning period with Busch, PCA, and Imanaga all "unknowns" at the ML level.

[thawv]

2 minutes ago, Backtobanks said:

I'm well aware of that, but we will be in serious trouble if we spend the whole season floundering while trying to give them a ML track record.  There certainly could be a learning period with Busch, PCA, and Imanaga all "unknowns" at the ML level.

The only difference here is, you assume that they are going to flounder, and I assume that they are going to succeed.  

[Tim]

1 hour ago, thawv said:

The only difference here is, you assume that they are going to flounder, and I assume that they are going to succeed.  

My assumption is that it's not a choice between "wild success" and "abject failure". I don't think they'll hit their peak value in year 1, but I think they are strong enough prospects (with enough backups in case they do flop) that they'll be able to contribute something to a lineup that has 7 of 9 above average spots filled already.

[CubinNY]

Since pitchers and catchers reported today is it still considered the offseason? 

[Rcal10]

16 minutes ago, Tim said:

My assumption is that it's not a choice between "wild success" and "abject failure". I don't think they'll hit their peak value in year 1, but I think they are strong enough prospects (with enough backups in case they do flop) that they'll be able to contribute something to a lineup that has 7 of 9 above average spots filled already.

This is my belief as well. But I don’t see PCA breaking camp as the starting centerfielder. Maybe he does come up in June as 1908 suggests. But maybe if the team is doing well and he needs more time at AAA he spends the season there. Either way I do think he will be a productive major leaguer, just not on thawv’s timeframe. 

[squally1313]

31 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

This is my belief as well. But I don’t see PCA breaking camp as the starting centerfielder. Maybe he does come up in June as 1908 suggests. But maybe if the team is doing well and he needs more time at AAA he spends the season there. Either way I do think he will be a productive major leaguer, just not on thawv’s timeframe. 

It's all dependent on Bellinger signing, and even then I would probably make the argument that PCA should still be on the team. PCA should absolutely be starting over Tauchman if those are your two options. This eventually becomes a more philosophical conversation about how WAR translates to wins (but, in a way, aren't they all?), but looking at the defensive leaders in centerfield from last year, it seems exceedingly easy to accrue WAR, even with below average offensive production, with above average/elite defensive ability. 

Someone like Joey Wiemer from the Brewers last year is probably an example of PCA's bat being worse than any expectations (his ZIPs line is 246/308/408). Wiemer put up a 212/285/390 line in 362 PAs last year and his defense was still good enough to give him 1.2 fWAR. Even if that is maybe fractionally less than what Tauchman did or projects to give, I think you have to still give the nod to PCA just for future developmental purposes. 

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I'm open to the idea that PCA learning at the big league level is ultimately just as good for the current and long term than it is for him to make some AAA adjustments, but I think the slope of that curve matters a lot.  If he's going to be the version from 2023 that was uncompetitive against MLB pitching before he makes those adjustments, then even if he ultimately ended up with a Wiemer line for a full season post-adjustment, the team would be better off in the short term letting him start at AAA and have Tauchman be a playable bat while he makes enough progress to have a higher baseline when promoted.  

[We Got The Whole 9]

 

6 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

I'm open to the idea that PCA learning at the big league level is ultimately just as good for the current and long term than it is for him to make some AAA adjustments, but I think the slope of that curve matters a lot.  If he's going to be the version from 2023 that was uncompetitive against MLB pitching before he makes those adjustments, then even if he ultimately ended up with a Wiemer line for a full season post-adjustment, the team would be better off in the short term letting him start at AAA and have Tauchman be a playable bat while he makes enough progress to have a higher baseline when promoted.  

Agreed. And Tauchman is a decent stopgap. Even if we acknowledge that a bit of his line was carried by an uncharacteristic 200 ISO in July, he still got on base really well in every month - the lowest being 338 in june - and he had a much better 2nd half than 1st, posting a 373 OBP, closing strong as the league adjusted to him. He's a reasonable bet to be a slightly above average bat. I would start PCA in AAA. 

[Jason Ross]

17 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

I'm open to the idea that PCA learning at the big league level is ultimately just as good for the current and long term than it is for him to make some AAA adjustments, but I think the slope of that curve matters a lot.  If he's going to be the version from 2023 that was uncompetitive against MLB pitching before he makes those adjustments, then even if he ultimately ended up with a Wiemer line for a full season post-adjustment, the team would be better off in the short term letting him start at AAA and have Tauchman be a playable bat while he makes enough progress to have a higher baseline when promoted.  

I've pulled a 180 as to where I sat on PCA. November-me would have told you he was our best option between he and Tauchmann, but today, I'd prefer if he got at least a month or two in Iowa to refine and mature his approach. Short term the Cubs, regardless of if they sign Bellinger, should stay afloat at the position enough to where they'll be okay in 2024. Long term, I think it could make a world of difference for Pete. And I say this as a very firm non-believer in Mike Tauchmann, but I'd rather the Cubs develop PCA the right way, than the right now way, when push comes to shove.

[CubinNY]

3 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

I've pulled a 180 as to where I sat on PCA. November-me would have told you he was our best option between he and Tauchmann, but today, I'd prefer if he got at least a month or two in Iowa to refine and mature his approach. Short term the Cubs, regardless of if they sign Bellinger, should stay afloat at the position enough to where they'll be okay in 2024. Long term, I think it could make a world of difference for Pete. And I say this as a very firm non-believer in Mike Tauchmann, but I'd rather the Cubs develop PCA the right way, than the right now way, when push comes to shove.

I think Jed and his team are going to develop PCA the way they think is correct regardless of the record of the team. They've shown no indication that they are invested in winning this year at the potential cost of the future.