Cubs Pre-Offseason Mega Thread

[Rcal10]

12 hours ago, Stratos said:

I'd like them both back. 

Wouldn’t mind them both back as well. But kind of goes against what Hoyer insinuated talking about relying less on defense and getting more strikeouts. I don’t see another FA pitcher added if your being these two back. At least not a high priced one. So they wouldn’t add strikeouts. Maybe they trade for that sort of guy. Maybe Detmers? 
They have some rough decisions. Do they offer Boyd and Happ a QO? If they do they may both accept. Then there isn’t money to add another starter after Peterson and Holmes. And basically you have the same staff that ended last year. And hope Brown, Steele, Cabrera and even Wiggins and/or Garrett can be useful. IMO that isn’t the worst rotation provided you can get starts from the question marks. But it isn’t a strike out heavy rotation. 

[Derwood]

 

AND I'LL DO IT AGAIN!!!!!!!

[Bertz]

Numbers are a little lighter than I expected, likely because a lot of these guys lack counting stats

[Geographyhater8888]

30 minutes ago, gflore34 said:

I get the talk of regression from some of the Cubs however, the Brewers are immune to regression?  Yes, they're a quality organization, blah, blah, blah, they also had an awful of lot things go right for them.  Turang had the best year of his career, as did Bauers and Mitchell maybe, their truly this good.  But, to assume from regression from PCA and Bregman who, from the start, are better than Bauers and Mitchell.  And none from the Brewers is more of the Cubs defeatism BS, such a load of nonsense.  It's baseball, players regress, yes even if their wearing Brewers' uniforms.

They’ve won over 90 games 4 years in a row with constant roster turnover, they’ve won 96, 89, 95 an 86 too from 2018-22, and have the top ranked farm system. It’s fair to give them the benefit of the doubt in the regular season. Hopefully they face plant again in the playoffs so we can stop aspiring to be regular season paper tigers and focus on improving pitching infrastructure, which wasn’t invented by Milwaukee. 

Edited 15 hours ago by Geographyhater8888

[Stratos]

2 hours ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

They need farm reinforcements, he’ll be 29 and isn’t a free agent until 2030, which is very valuable. He’s expendable enough for the right farm package.

I think Busch is only expendable if we have a solid replacement, which we don't.  Selling low on him is also a bad idea IMO.

[Jason Ross]

1 hour ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

His attempts to fix these issues are working around the margins with relatively lower risk/cheap acquisitions. The trade deadline essentially forced his hand to quit being cute and trade for established talent. Of course having no farm reinforcements is why he chooses this course of action. 
 

They’re getting their moneys worth from war (Nico and Swanson) but not necessarily wins. They have the l war of an 89 win team on average since 2023 with only an 86.75 win average. Their run differential is that of an average of 92 wins over the last 4 years too. What is it about the roster construction that’s causing this discrepancy?

I wouldn't use WAR this way. It's a great value number, but people like to play the gotcha-game on them. They built an 89 win team (on average) and have landed around that value (rounding gets you to 87). Variance is well within a few wins. There isn't really a discrepancy. 

The issue is that they keep building ~90 win teams and they have gotten some weird bad luck. They got some late injuries last year that hurt them in the playoffs. They had a lot of injuries this year. Even with positive variance there's only so much you can expect. It's a good way to build consistent playoff teams, but we're seeing there is some limitations in that build. 

The fix is simple. Build a 95 win team and when you have some variance you're looking at the 98-92 win range versus the 93-87 win range. 

[Stratos]

3 hours ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

I don’t see any realistic path towards catching the Brewers if we’re demanding 97+ wins. It’s not a realistic bar and won’t happen overnight unless you have the Dodgers payroll or the Brewers secret potion for regular season success that neither David Stearns or Craig Counsell brought to their new teams. 

I'm not sure anyone including Jed has any idea how the Brewers get overachievement on virtually every single player and signing.  Like how is their success rate on everything 99%?   It's impossible to match something that defies the laws of probabilities.

 

[gflore34]

7 minutes ago, Stratos said:

I'm not sure anyone including Jed has any idea how the Brewers get overachievement on virtually every single player and signing.  Like how is their success rate on everything 99%?   It's impossible to match something that defies the laws of probabilities.

 

It's baseball, it happens, I don't care how "great" the Brewers organization is, it won't continue ad infinitum.   And the Cubs bombing on nearly every move won't be a constant.

[Geographyhater8888]

23 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

I wouldn't use WAR this way. It's a great value number, but people like to play the gotcha-game on them. They built an 89 win team (on average) and have landed around that value (rounding gets you to 87). Variance is well within a few wins. There isn't really a discrepancy. 

The issue is that they keep building ~90 win teams and they have gotten some weird bad luck. They got some late injuries last year that hurt them in the playoffs. They had a lot of injuries this year. Even with positive variance there's only so much you can expect. It's a good way to build consistent playoff teams, but we're seeing there is some limitations in that build. 

The fix is simple. Build a 95 win team and when you have some variance you're looking at the 98-92 win range versus the 93-87 win range. 

I’m not here to discredit war. I’m sure the bullpen is a major culprit, and their ability to score in bunches and beat the horsefeathers out of teams is on the extreme end of the spectrum relative to their record (125-68 record in blowouts since 2023), which inflates war to a minor degree, is part of the equation. Just an interesting profile of team to be this consistent year after year. 

Expected win loss record vs actual win loss record since 2023: 90-72 vs 83-79, 88-74 vs 83-79, 96-66 vs 92-70, 95-67 vs 89-73. 

Edited 14 hours ago by Geographyhater8888

[Stratos]

1 hour ago, gflore34 said:

I get the talk of regression from some of the Cubs however, the Brewers are immune to regression?  Yes, they're a quality organization, blah, blah, blah, they also had an awful of lot things go right for them.  Turang had the best year of his career, as did Bauers and Mitchell maybe, their truly this good.  But, to assume from regression from PCA and Bregman who, from the start, are better than Bauers and Mitchell.  And none from the Brewers is more of the Cubs defeatism BS, such a load of nonsense.  It's baseball, players regress, yes even if their wearing Brewers' uniforms.

Problem is we assume this every year for the Brewers but it just doesn't happen.  We thought losing Peralta, Burnes, and Adames would hurt them but then guys like Miz and Turang take their place.

[Stratos]

29 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

I wouldn't use WAR this way. It's a great value number, but people like to play the gotcha-game on them. They built an 89 win team (on average) and have landed around that value (rounding gets you to 87). Variance is well within a few wins. There isn't really a discrepancy. 

The issue is that they keep building ~90 win teams and they have gotten some weird bad luck. They got some late injuries last year that hurt them in the playoffs. They had a lot of injuries this year. Even with positive variance there's only so much you can expect. It's a good way to build consistent playoff teams, but we're seeing there is some limitations in that build. 

The fix is simple. Build a 95 win team and when you have some variance you're looking at the 98-92 win range versus the 93-87 win range. 

Fangraphs also says WAR isn't an exact number because things like defensive stats aren't perfect and all-encompassing, so WAR is best used to put players in certain ranges of value rather than saying player A with 4.5 WAR is unquestionablely better than player B with 4.0 WAR.

fWAR for pitchers also isn't perfect and all-encompassing.  It doesn't take into account i.e. ability to hold runners, quality of contact etc. 

Edited 14 hours ago by Stratos

[gflore34]

31 minutes ago, Stratos said:

Problem is we assume this every year for the Brewers but it just doesn't happen.  We thought losing Peralta, Burnes, and Adames would hurt them but then guys like Miz and Turang take their place.

But to talk of PCA, who, by the way is 24, assuredly regressing and somehow Turang, who, is 26, auto-magically not being a candidate for regression is total BS.   Also believe we'll see some positive regression from Hoerner, Swanson and, to a lesser extent, Busch.

Edited 13 hours ago by gflore34

[Tryptamine]

2 hours ago, Illiterate Scholar said:

Really? I'd say that's about right, maybe just a little low. He is coming off back-to-back sub 19% K rate seasons. The GB rate is crazy but he's not getting a huge contract. I also think the prospect cost (Rojas) appears to be more expensive now compared to how he was viewed when traded.

A 3.63 FIP puts him ahead of guys this board covets like Logan Gilbert and Joe Ryan and yes while he did miss a significant portion of the season, it's not like it was an arm injury or reoccurring injury. He was hit in the leg with a line drive causing a fractured fibula. Teams aren't going to hold that against him. He put up 1.8 fWAR in just over a 100 IP. That puts him ion full season pace for just under 3.6 fWAR. That would have put him just outside the top 20 pitchers in fWAR this season. 

[gflore34]

8 minutes ago, Tryptamine said:

A 3.63 FIP puts him ahead of guys this board covets like Logan Gilbert and Joe Ryan and yes while he did miss a significant portion of the season, it's not like it was an arm injury or reoccurring injury. He was hit in the leg with a line drive causing a fractured fibula. Teams aren't going to hold that against him. He put up 1.8 fWAR in just over a 100 IP. That puts him ion full season pace for just under 3.6 fWAR. That would have put him just outside the top 20 pitchers in fWAR this season. 

I'd be willing to re-up on Holmes, nothing long term.  As many here are, I'm not convinced Rojas is a given all star.  Same moaning and groaning we heard about Cam Smith - take a look at his statistics - in a word, bad, and, that's being kind.

Edited 13 hours ago by gflore34

[Rcal10]

13 minutes ago, Tryptamine said:

A 3.63 FIP puts him ahead of guys this board covets like Logan Gilbert and Joe Ryan and yes while he did miss a significant portion of the season, it's not like it was an arm injury or reoccurring injury. He was hit in the leg with a line drive causing a fractured fibula. Teams aren't going to hold that against him. He put up 1.8 fWAR in just over a 100 IP. That puts him ion full season pace for just under 3.6 fWAR. That would have put him just outside the top 20 pitchers in fWAR this season. 

But if the Cubs are looking for high strike out pitchers he isn’t it. He will get more than 3/$50M, I agree on that. Maybe 4/$84M. Is he still signable with that valuation? Or is that still low?

[Tangled Up in Plaid]

There was speculation at the deadline the Mariners might trade Kirby. I assume that will be revisited

[Tryptamine]

7 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

But if the Cubs are looking for high strike out pitchers he isn’t it. He will get more than 3/$50M, I agree on that. Maybe 4/$84M. Is he still signable with that valuation? Or is that still low?

I could see 4/84 and I still think that's very doable. That earlier mentioned number,  if that was even possible, he'd be signed the moment the playoffs end.

[Rcal10]

27 minutes ago, Tryptamine said:

I could see 4/84 and I still think that's very doable. That earlier mentioned number,  if that was even possible, he'd be signed the moment the playoffs end.

I agree with everything said above. But, as I said, he doesn’t fit if Hoyer is looking for guys who strike people out. 

Edited 12 hours ago by Rcal10

[gflore34]

10 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

I agree with everything said above. But, as I said, he doesn’t fit if Hoyer is looking for guys who strike people out. 

Might it be permissible to have one GB/pitch to contact guy in the rotation as opposed to one comprised solely of theses types?

[Rcal10]

This is going to be an interesting off season. Lots of ways they can go. They are losing Happ, Seiya, Tallion, Imanaga, Boyd and Kelly’s salaries. Also losing Holmes, Peterson, Conforto and Taylor. But PCA and Hoerner start their new contracts. I think they are going to give Happ and Seiya a QO. Happ may take it. They can also offer Boyd a contract too. He, too may take it. So if both Happ and Boyd take the one year deal how much money is left? I don’t think there is much. Maybe enough to sign someone like Holmes. But that is about it. If they have enough maybe they sign Holmes and someone like Peterson again. But that gives them pretty much the same staff they had. And an open spot in the outfield. And that rotation wasn’t good enough. Can Cabrera rebound? Can Brown start 25-30 times? Can Steele give us anything? Then there is Garrett, Wiggins. Assad, maybe Horton late in the year. 🤷 lots of uncertainty.
And that doesn’t even address who takes Seiya’s spot. If both Happ and Boyd reject the QO, or don’t get one, this frees up more money, but now gives the Cubs more holes to fill. A whole lot of moving parts this off season. Add that to the uncertainty of the off season, and who knows how this turns out. 

[Rcal10]

8 minutes ago, gflore34 said:

Might it be permissible to have one GB/pitch to contact guy in the rotation as opposed to one comprised solely of theses types?

I agree. And I am fine with Holmes. But where do they get this starter who stikes guys out. If they sign Holmes I don’t see them signing another high priced starter. Maybe trade for a guy who strikes guys out🤷Maybe take a chance on Bubic? 

[Jason Ross]

2 hours ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

I’m not here to discredit war. I’m sure the bullpen is a major culprit, and their ability to score in bunches and beat the horsefeathers out of teams is on the extreme end of the spectrum relative to their record (125-68 record in blowouts since 2023), which inflates war to a minor degree, is part of the equation. Just an interesting profile of team to be this consistent year after year. 

Expected win loss record vs actual win loss record since 2023: 90-72 vs 83-79, 88-74 vs 83-79, 96-66 vs 92-70, 95-67 vs 89-73. 

Well, whether or not you're trying to do that, I think you're in the wrong place with this question and what you're looking for. You're using it as a 1:1 predictive data point and trying to figure how the Cubs were supposed to average 89 wins and averaged instead, around 87. 

Variance. It's baked in. It's an imperfect statistic. I like WAR but its not designed to do this. I just don't think you're using it correctly. 

The question shouldn't be "How can the Cubs come up 2 games short?" but "How can the Cubs make sure that variance isn't as big of a deal?" and that answer is: build a better team. Part of that is on Jed. Part of that is on Tom. As an organization, they've proven they can win games. They've proven they can build an elite side of baseball. They've proven they can make the playoffs. I'd argue they've mostly proven to build a consistent winner.

Now it's time to prove you can do more.

[JunkyardWalrus]

The Brewers get more from their players because they have better coaching and a better system to season prospects in.

Counsell has the charisma of a sack of dead cats. Hoyer pays for floor, not ceiling and not those ol risky arms, which are the only kind in MLB.

Instead he spent our prospect capital on players that ledt us with the same problems coming into the third season straight. And signed a bottom 10 league bat to play 2b for six years. Yay.

If Happ is back, I'm going to be so gd disappointed. 

[Stratos]

4 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

Wouldn’t mind them both back as well. But kind of goes against what Hoyer insinuated talking about relying less on defense and getting more strikeouts. I don’t see another FA pitcher added if your being these two back. At least not a high priced one. So they wouldn’t add strikeouts. Maybe they trade for that sort of guy. Maybe Detmers? 
They have some rough decisions. Do they offer Boyd and Happ a QO? If they do they may both accept. Then there isn’t money to add another starter after Peterson and Holmes. And basically you have the same staff that ended last year. And hope Brown, Steele, Cabrera and even Wiggins and/or Garrett can be useful. IMO that isn’t the worst rotation provided you can get starts from the question marks. But it isn’t a strike out heavy rotation. 

I don't recall Hoyer mentioning anything about increasing strikeouts in his presser. 

One thing he did say was they need to reduce the # of HR given up, and that balls not in play (like HR) don't take advantage of their excellent defense.

Hoyer essentially said that since the season just ended they're still in the process of re-evaluating everything organization-wide about pitching, which i assume also includes their approach to who they target in acquisitions.

[mk49]

1 hour ago, Stratos said:

I don't recall Hoyer mentioning anything about increasing strikeouts in his presser. 

One thing he did say was they need to reduce the # of HR given up, and that balls not in play (like HR) don't take advantage of their excellent defense.

Hoyer essentially said that since the season just ended they're still in the process of re-evaluating everything organization-wide about pitching, which i assume also includes their approach to who they target in acquisitions.

An interesting thing was that Gausman and Shota had the highest K% and HR/9 in our rotation.  They didn't walk many.  Peterson started getting a lot of K's towards the end of the season, probably about 10 K/9 in the last 2 months.  He didn't give up many HR's, but he walked more than Gausman and Shota did (but, less than Holmes).  Both Boyd and Holmes didn't get many strikeouts.  Holmes walked a lot, especially in Sep.  

So, which type do you prefer?  Sure, I want a pitcher who has high K%, high GB%, low HR% and low BB%, but that's hard to come by and costs a lot.  I think Peterson type is the best bet for the Cubs.  Yesterday, I looked for somebody like him (decent K% and BB%, high GB% and not too many HR's given up).  I found a few, but I don't think those guys will be traded.  They're pretty young with a few or more years under the team control.

Edited 9 hours ago by mk49