craig

No aggressive predicting here. But to even be discussing Ademan for Myrtle, or Morel or Velasquez for South Bend, and not have it be ludicrous, is amazingly favorable. Of the names you mention, Morel to South Bend would be maybe the one I'd guess is least unrealistic? I'm perfectly comfortable with Lange at South Bend. The rep is "big-level college pitcher", but I think he has a lot of development left. I think it makes good sense to place a guy who really has a new pitch to work on at a modest level, so that every mistake doesn't get punished and he give up too soon. Think the Lange who could be a big-league starter in 3-years might win with a much more developed arsenal than he needed at LSU, but it's going to take some time. Don't rush a guy who could become a rotation mainstay. Keegan Thompson seems like the guy to jump to Myrtle. I'm very interested in Uelman. Cory Abbott seems the forgot, less-respected man. Not sure, maybe he'll go straight to Myrtle. But as with Lange, I think despite his college success last year, I think he may have a lot to develop still. Don't think the Cubs have any need to be aggressive with any of their guys. Big league roster is pretty set, so not much urgency. Perhaps they do feel that trade-game is the thing, and that anybody who shows some young success in full-season is bait. Maybe also that the sooner a pitcher reaches AA, the easier it is to shop him as "almost ready".

Thanks, Cal, that's great news re Adzolay. The difference between him being fine, versus having some significant arm problem, is huge for the system.

Encouraging to see clean line for Tseng. With Maples looking so awful, not sure who else is in the running for options yo-yo, if Simmons is hurt. Does Rosario have any options left, or the big lefty from the Mets system? Or Bass or Alvarez or anybody, in the event they were added to the 25-man? I'm kinda thinking that *IF* Strop (or Wilson) aren't recovered enough to be ready for opening day, but aren't far off, whether there's an options guy you could carry, just in case, for a week, hopefully not having any extra-inning games or games where Lester gets knocked out in the 2nd, so you don't need to use the guy. But if it's a no-options guy, do you want to expose the guy to waivers after the week? Is that worth it? Or could you occupy that spot with an options guy?

Big-market Cubs wanted both Eloy and Gleyber, and could just pay tax. Cubs spent more on Sierra than on Ademan, Amaya, or Albertos; but they were able to just pay tax and get all four. So nobody could leverage them much to trade for Ademan, Amaya, or Albertos dollars. I assume the price will be way, way, way higher, now that big-market teams can't overspend. Way higher. Plus I assume smaller-market teams (with finally a level, fair playing field) will have better reason to sign guys themselves. If you've got a fair chance to get good value by signing guys yourself, why trade your money away? My guess is that the cost of cap space is going to be really, really high, and it will be very difficult to supplement. Might be different late in the "year". Maybe some teams will ave some unspent leftover crumbs late that they might be willing to trade?

Thanks for posts, Cubswin. Not sure if that means anything, but it is a reminder that Perez was a $1.25 guy, and he was VERY young, and IIRC was signed as a defensive catcher who might grow into some power? He was still only 17 last year, and while his .224 average wasn't too hot, it was some progress. Would be really fun if a guy like that started to emerge as a guy who could hit as well as catch, and be worth tracking this summer at Mesa. Thanks too for the Az Phil report. Yeah, Callis who I think still gets Cubs people to talk to him, said Cubs see considerable promise in Little's change, and hope he can be a 3-pitch rotation prospect. *IF* he was able to end up developing both good change and curve, that would give a pretty quality arsenal. That will be hard, though, since nobody seems to view him as a consistent control guy. Maybe Cubs think that could be in there, too, and that's why they used a first on him? Curve and change are both super-hard-to-control and hard-to-throw-for-strikes pitches, so the odds aren't great. But very fun to have Phil giving a report and having his observations be very positive. That would be so awesome if BOTH Little and Lange had good summers and both came out looking like smart, good-value picks.

Positive Ademan stuff is encouraging.

Thanks for Az Phil link, Cal. Very helpful to see who's on rehab. Helpful to see who's getting the two-inning camp outings, since those are basically rotation guys. The BA book had questioned whether Uelman would start or relieve, but he was in the 2-inning starter role.

BA book lists him as a reliever, said he got up to 94-96 in relief, but was 90-93 in rotation. Doesn't scout any of his offspeed pitches as more than average if that. So, they basically view him as a guy with no good-stuff pitches in rotation, and just the fastball in relief. Basically a no-stuff command guy. Doesn't seem that different a scouting report from what other media guys give. BA may be right, and none of the other scouting writeups seems to like is stuff very well either. Still, kind of a puzzle how he can be whiffing guys all the time without actually having any good pitches? He averaged over a K-per-inning, so it would seem that even if none of his stuff seems particularly sharp, that somehow A-ball hitters still miss it a lot. Perhaps it's just a testament to the value of command; if you're getting ahead 1-2 on three guys per inning, and you throw so many fastball strikes that guys are expecting a strike, maybe you don't need anything sharp to still be getting some A-ballers to chase and whiff. Or, maybe there's something in the delivery that's deceptive, so guys can't easily distinguish a so-so curve from a fastball, and end up K-ing even thought the curve doesn't have much spin rate or anything? It's just weird.

What rule is dumb? That they test for anything at all? Or for some particular thing(s) that are on the banned list and perhaps shouldn't be?

Don't imagine Cobb will come in at $52/4. The deals don't really seem to be coming in particularly low. My guess is that if he didn't feel like he had offers better than that, he'd have signed with Twins before this. And my guess is if the Twins thought they could get him at that kind of price, they'd have signed him rather than give up an excellent prospect for Odorizzi.

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.