craig

https://www.cubsinsider.com/2018/02/13/watch-yu-darvish-introductory-press-conference/ The two press conference, DArvish and then Theo/Jed/Maddon. Very positive. They are very positive above Yu and his stuff, and seem to think both they and Yu have ideas for how he can be better. Maddon is very enthusiastic about things, that everybody seems in great shape, attitude is positive, etc.. It does seem a different vibe. Last year, seemed like a lot of the spring talk was looking back at the World Series year. This year, seems very forward-looking. Very little baseball-detail comments. Re-emphasized that Monty will be in camp rotation, and the expectation that he'll start a lot of games. Maddon was all positive about MM, and had no concerns with his attitude or state-of-mind. Some positivism about Chatwood, think he's got a lot to give and they'd ID'd him as a target early. Hoyer reviewed the target on adding strike-throwers to the bullpen, and viewed Cishek, Morrow, and Duensing as having accomplished that goal. (Morrow has a career 3.9 walk-rate, so I'm a little nervous there.) Theo mentioned that they might not need to do anything next winter, since everybody is under club-control; but of course acknowledged that things can change. Darvish was all interpreter in press conference, but Maddon said he's talked to him and his English is good. (It was pretty obvious that for most questions, Darvish understood the question in English, even before translation. Probably hearing it twice and having extra time gives more chance to compose answers.) They repeatedly emphasized the desire to have FA signed before camp, so he'd have time to fit in and go through everything with the rest of the team and not have disruption or awkwardness. Maddon had no new plan for leadoff, sounded very prepared to platoon and improvise there.

has anybody found a link to the full press conference? I think it touched on much beyond Darvish, no?

Yeah, it seems strange. When I heard Theo say it, I didn't take it at all negatively as a few of you have. Theo has talked a few times about how disappointed and frustrated he's been for the players this offseason. Can't imagine many other front office types have talked like that. He's said all the right things even if he doesn't mean it. That was a pretty long press conference. I didn't hear the whole thing (wish I had). But yeah, just what I'd read or heard in clip, I didn't take it all negatively, bad taste, braggy, inappropriate. I think it's a great insight into the interconnectedness of management decisions. I admit I was not that sure the Eloy/Q trade was wise at the time. I knew Q's contract was good, but I don't think I appreciated then that might help enable an offseason like this. So as a fan, I think it was a very helpful, and straightforward insight, by Theo. If explaining some of the management logic comes across as braggy, it didn't to me.

He never wanted Arrieta.... at Boras's price. I'm not at all convinced he might not have been interested, **if** Boras would have ever wanted to talk seriously involving the types of dollars that Darvish ended up signing for. Beats me, what do I know. Maybe they didn't want Arrieta, and "we thought Boras is asking too much, he never called us to tell us otherwise" was always just an excuse to not engage. But my hypothesis has still been that they had discussions with Boras, perhaps after the season, certainly dating back over the last couple of years; that they already had an understanding of what Boras wanted and thought it was too much; and that they didn't have reason to do much talking.....: until/unless Boras was to call them back and tell them that in view of the actual market, he was ready to reconsider and reduce his asking price after all. But again, what do I know.

I heard differently though. The Cubs made this their final offer to Darvish and while waiting for confirmation from his agency, got in contact with Boras to offer a similar deal to see where Arrieta is at (which ended up being rejected by Boras). Arrieta's offer on the table was more about curtailing speculation that there is something wrong with him as to why the Cubs didn't pursue him. Had Darvish rejected the offer, it might be a different story and Arrieta would be in play but not likely with what Boras is seeking. This was about the Cubs getting a better pitcher at a cheaper rate in Darvish over Arrieta rather than some injury cover-up. Teams can look at Arrieta's drop in velo if they have injury concerns. Not sure I'm tracking. 1. If Boras had said yes, quickly, would they have been fine with Jake? In other words, if they offered both pitchers the same offer, would they have been interchangeably fine with either guy? 2. Would they have actually preferred Jake, price being equal? In other words, they kinda knew Boras would say no, but would they have been as happy or happier to get Jake for the same money? If so, that would argue that their perception differs from a commonly held view that we ended up with the better pitcher. 3. Has price-point been the key all along? Originally we thought Cobb was a target, because he'd cost less, not necessarily because he was scouted as the best pitcher. Has Darvish/Arrieta always been about price point? (Obviously "value" is always a ratio of scouting-projection to price; I'm just wondering whether they liked Arrieta interchangeably well or perhaps a little better as a pitcher; just not enough to justify a significantly more expensive price point.) 4. Was this just a token courtesy/fishing move? Communicate to the league that they don't have problems with Arrieta, it was always just about price-point? So that if somebody else can reach an agreement, they shouldn't be worried that the Cubs secretly know there is something wrong under the hood? And maybe communicate to Jake as well that you were never disrespecting him; it was always about the agent that he'd hired just wanting more. (Jake will be back at other Conventions and be a huge part of Cubs history, so leaving on good terms might be kinda important. And you never know whether someday late in is career he might someow come back and pitch for you again....) 5. Perhaps by communicating that you've got no issues with Arrieta other than Boras's price, might that also serve Cubs draft interests if indicating such helps expedite getting him signed somewhere? An extra pick in front of the 3rd round doesn't change a whole lot I wouldn't think, but maybe it would impact a little? Maybe you plan out a little more scouting focus on guys who might fall in that range? Maybe with an extra comp pick, you've got just a little extra discretionary money, and a little more chance to consider sub-slotting there in oder to free up extra cash to superslot with 1st or 2nd picks? Probably nice to just kind of know what you're going to be working with in the draft before the scouting season kicks into full gear?

So the spreadsheet has us letting those guys go and replacing them with league minimum guys, and we're still over in 2020 because guys like Bryant and Russell and Hendricks are getting more expensive through arbitration. If we sign Harper, it's likely that we won't get under the tax for several years, probably not until the new CBA when (presumably) the limits have been significantly raised. The new TV deal is the silver bullet here. We'll see when we get the details, but it's likely that it will allow us to spend at or near the Yankees/Dodgers level. That means that we should be able to blow past the luxury tax number. At that point the "real" cap is likely $40 million above the tax, because at that point the tax is nearly dollar for dollar AND it starts hurting us in the draft. Yes. The young players are going to inflate and inflate and inflate. *IF* they were to sign Harper, it would have to be so with the acceptance that we'll be over the lux line and and accepting lux-penalties until the next CBA comes around. Not sure whether or not that will happen. But that might just need to be the price of doing business. Hopefully they win enough this year, and seem poised to keep on doing so, where being well north of lux line and absorbing lux penalties is considered acceptable. I do think it's especially desirable that somehow some of last summer's draft picks work out; and that this draft, with late 1st and 2nd picks, plus 2 extra 2nds, that they hit on some guys. Ideally plural.

I kinda suspect Theo just hopes/expected that Hickey and Contreras and a fresh year will get more strikes thrown out of the carryover personnel. Think he'd like (Theo) a different approach. Maybe more aggressive, more fastballs, more inside the zone and less nibbling the edges and outside the zone, maybe going for less chase pitches. Throwing more fastballs and fewer chase pitches would probably result in fewer K's and more hard contact, as would aiming a fastball two inches into the strike zone rather than targeting an inch off the edge. (Given that our relievers aren't going to hit their fastball targets anyway, if you aim inside the zone, the guy may well miss and throw it down the middle and get whacked....) If they were to adjust a little bit towards more fastballs and more strikes, that could reduce the walks (good) but compromise K's and perhaps result in more hard contact (bad). Even if Theo were to want that shift, I don't think that's going to play unless Willson buys in. If he's always setting up outside the zone for fastballs, and calling more breaking pitches than fastballs with the relievers, I'm not sure the carryover guys are going to magically become better strike-throwers.

Yes. Morrow for Davis; Cishek for Rondon; Wilson for Koji. And a chance of Butler/Maples for Grimm. There's some turnover there, yes. Not sure how much step-up in terms of strike-throwing personnel, though.... Given Morrow's history and that Wilson was the most non-strike-throw-y of anybody we had. And even if Maples or Butler were to win Grimm's job, they aren't exactly strike-throwers either....

Grimm has plenty of velocity and a knockout breaking ball, and has been variable good/anti-awful in years prior to last. So I think it makes sense to have an open competition where he could step it up and win the job. He might have a very good year. So don't think Hoyer is going to give a guaranteed contract and guarantee that spot to somebody else. Still, even when his seasonal numbers have come out alright, he's always been a bucket of inconsistency/non-reliability/nervousness. You just don't know which day he won't be able to throw a strike. And it takes him so many pitches to get an out that it's hard to envision him picking up 2-3 innings, or picking up a 3-5 inning start here or there. I admit for a 6th-inning guy, I'd kinda prefer to see a more consistent strike-thrower, even if the stuff is more limited, and a guy who could pick up a couple of innings. For those days when Chatwood is kinda wild or when Lester is at 90 pitches after 4 innings, I'd kind of like that bridge guy to be able to throw strikes and get his fastball over, even if he doesn't strike many guys out. A guy who can usually get through an inning or two without walking everybody. If he gives up some contact and gives up a run, that's life, you know you aren't going to have a dominant shut-down guy as your 13th pitcher. Not sure that kind of guy is available for a NRI deal, though.

Theo basically said they were done with pen after Duensing, so I don't think they're going to sign anymore guaranteed big-league-contract guys. I think it's NRI or nothing. Not sure who's left or who would be willing to sign NRI deals at this point. But yeah, if Romo or other decent guy or two was willing, I'd be pretty interested. The last spot is basically between Grimm, Butler, and Maples. Maples has probably the most electric stuff of those three, but he's got options. So I think he'd need to dramatically out-impress the other two to win that job. Anything even remotely comparable, may as well save him at Iowa for options yo-yo. AzPhil had a nice article this week detailing how Grimm's arb deal is NOT guaranteed, so it's not like the Cubs would be out $2.2 if they chose Romo of Butler and cut Grimm. Phil also suggested there was pretty good chance Cubs could get Grimm to Iowa (If nobody else claimed him for their 25, and if he didn't immediately declare FA.) So, if you had Butler and Romo and/or somebody else NRI, it really could be a true open competition. I admit I'd like to see another name or two, whether Romo or somebody else, added to that competition if possible.

It's common wisdom to avoid long-term deals, particularly for pitchers. At the same time, it's common wisdom to covet club-control years. Obviously the latter particularly applies to when those club-controlled years are at favorable or at least reasonable price, and also where you can get out in case of debilitation injury. But I think there is also some value in club-control just in terms of roster stability and in the ability to plan ahead. I think that *if* the Cubs got Yu, they'd have a lot of long-term contract definition. Might make it a lot easier to plan ahead and build. That's harder to do with a lot of short term expiring deals. And that's also especially nice *IF* the long-term guy you've got ends up being good value and worth the money. Heyward, it kills you when the money is down the drain. But showing my age, Bulls had Michael Jordan on a forever long-term deal, and he was a bargain year after year. Ryne Sandberg signed a long-term deal which seemed substantial at the time, but then it became a huge bargain as inflation left it in the dust. Washington has no regrets about signing Scherzer to a long-term deal. So it's possible that *if* Darvish signed at 5 x $25, and stayed healthy and pitched at a high level, that could end up looking like a really solid value.

Thanks, cal, that's a good article. What struck me as most interesting was this part: Not sure how subtracting Dodgers and Yankees reduces it to Twins and Astros, but Sharma is smart and it's his job to think and analyze, so perhaps he's right. Beats me. Why not Cardinals or Giants, or Rangers or Rockies or DBacks or Red Sox or Washington or Angels or Seattle? Beats me, I don't know everybody's payrolls or team priorities.... But I'm hoping this is kinda correct, that for whatever confluence of circumstances, that Darvish's market just hasn't gone wild, and you've got a good shot to get a decent-value deal.

If they trade Yelich, it will be a baseball trade. They've cleared salary, and he's cheap, so the only reason to trade is to accumulate GOOD prospects plural, not financial. The Cubs farm is empty, so I don't think they can be players. Unless Miami REALLY likes Almora and Happ a lot more than I expect (or think they should). I assume that IF they want to trade Yelich, there will be other teams who can offer much better prospect package than the Cubs can.

http://mlb.mlb.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?gid=2017_11_18_msswin_perwin_1&t=g_box&sid=l119 Mills and Stinnett team up for 6 runs in 3.2 innings in 8-2 loss.

When Derek Johnson persuaded the Cubs to draft Stinnett, Johnson envisioned Stinnett as a potential great control guy. Kind of a Hendricks with velocity. That control/command has never developed, at least not with any consistency. If solid control did somehow emerge at this stage in his career, he might still have a shot to be an anti-awful yo-yo guy. Sometimes with pitchers, it can take a while, and somewhat-useful relievers can emerge unexpectedly and late. But throwing a couple 93-94's when well rested, won't go far without improved command.

Think Theo said it was up to Joe what coaches would return. And it was earlier in the week, or perhaps last week, that Joe said he expected to bring all his coaches back. So, within 10 days or less, something changed.

1. I think the question of whether or not the Cubs "guess-hit" more than is optimal, or usual, is a good and fascinating question. 2. As Tim followed up, it would be interesting, and difficult, to try to quantify that. 3. I agree that I'm fine with what management decides, whether to keep Mallee or make a switch. 4. I hypothesize that guess-hitting might be less effective against better pitchers? The more good pitches that a pitcher has to choose from, probably the less chance to guess correctly? Might be a lot easier to guess correctly from a Reds pitcher than from a Dodger? 5. I think Baez is a major guess-hitter. 6. Agree with point that we tend to remember the "bad guesses". 7. Cubs have invested their developmental draft picks and resources into players, not pitchers. When the team philosophy has prioritized players, then if the team is going to be the best in baseball, it might depend on the hitting being the best in baseball.

I wouldn't. Thinks Cubs can and should be VERY patient with their prospects. They've got so few of them that have any potential significant value, those few they have they need to develop as patiently and optimally as possible. If he's got any possible capacity to end up as a serviceable 3rd starter, I'd rather take the time for that even if it takes a little longer than bringing him up faster as a reliever. Need to produce some capable starting players, and as modest as that chance may be with de la Cruz, I think it's still less unlikely for him than it is for most of the other guys in the system. Not like Myrtle or Tennessee are going to both have 5 better long-term starting-pitcher candidates, I don't think. For similar reasons I'll still keep him in top-10.

Agree with that perception. His walks are low, but doesn't appear be spotting the ball. Some of the "misses" seem to miss variably badly.

Brailyn shutout through 5.

Agree with the "no one has separated" point. This isn't like Eloy versus the rest. Hatch, Rucker, Alzolay, Albertos, Tseng, Lange, not at all clear which of those RHP will be the best, or which will actually make it as a rotation guy. Hopefully from quantity comes quality. And hopefully from quantity will come quantity. One thing I always appreciate from Tom's posts on pitchers is his attention to the HR-rates. That's a real and such an important thing.

Two things: 1. My point 2 was wrong. He mentioned Rucker, yes. But he ALSO mentioned Hatch, as a sinker/slider guy. 2. Cubswin: You watched Tseng pitch a couple of starts ago, when he had a good outing. Does MacLeod's reference to Tseng with a 90-93 fastball seem representative from what you saw/recall? Or is that a little scouting-director exaggeration/hype? Or maybe "90-93" is really more what he tops at most starts, as opposed to where he typically throws his fastball most starts? Or does that 90-93 seem in line with what you saw? Or is it just not even hardly relevant? If he's throwing 90 pitches, and 35 are curveballs, 25 are cutters, 15 are changes, and only 15 are regular fastballs, do you even notice them and does it matter much if they are coming in at 90 versus 92 or 93? Or if there are 25 cutters, 10 2-seamers, and five 4-seam fastballs, how can you even notice or remember?

Think most successful pitchers have one excellent pitch. Not sure is Tseng has any. Maybe his change is. But I think if you can locate/spot your fastball when needed, and then mix that in with three other pitches (change/curve/cutter), that gives a diversity of pitches to work with and mix up. If you can control, you can win a lot of starts with that. Having something like that as your 6th starter in Iowa next year could be useful. Or, using a guy like that as 5th starter to replace Lackey's $32/2 contract, while focusing your Lackey/Arrieta/Montero/Koji/Anderson money on one one above-average starter, might make some value too.

From friend on other board: McCloud was on the Score. When questioned about the pitching in the lower minors, he singled out Tseng as a guy at AAA. He mentioned that Tseng was 90-93 with a cutter and excellent change up. At AA he mentioned Alzozay and that he threw harder than Tseng. McLoud when he got to lower minors mentioned Rucker. Things I found interesting: 1. May be that Cubs like Tseng better than the board does, and take him seriously. Not sure whether Jason would bother to detail Tseng's stuff if he's perceived as just an AAAA no-stuff guy who's not going to fit into our pitching top-ten. I didn't know he was a cutter guy, myself. Obviously 90-93 fastball isn't very fast, and he's a soft-toss finesse guy. But the ability to locate/command a 90-93 fastball as needed, and use that as a change-up relative to cutter/change/curve, that's an arsenal of different speeds and movements that a guy can perhaps pitch with. Think we've tended to write Tseng off as a no-stuff guy; but maybe his recent and season-composite success is telling us that his stuff is enough and diverse enough to work? 2. Thought it interesting that he mentioned Rucker from Myrtle, rather than Hatch or Steele.

I don't much care about ranking top 2 or top 5. That seems very much the collection of guys who are rotation candidates overall, other than rookie-league and DSL Latins. That's not a great pool, but there is some volume of interesting guys. And I'm optimistic that we've got a development group that can handle them well. Those are 14 names, and health permitting there's a chance that 13 of them, all but Estrada, will be in full-season next year. You've got some guys to draw from for injury-replacement; roster-yo-yo; and potential back-of-rotation guy. I think it's fun, and hope we get lucky with that pool. Very optimistic.