Northsider

I've been a fan of signing Austin Jackson and trading Coghlan for pitching this offseason; but after listening to that I'm hoping to see him stick around with us for a long time. He's really bought into how valuable stats can be for a player, and I want that around the rest of our young guys.

There should be some general acceptance that these guys are not close to what the Cubs just pulled off with Bryant (top 2 pick, top prospect in all of baseball), Schwarber (4th overall pick), Soler (30 million dollar prospect), and Russell (top 5 prospect in baseball by age 19/20). Hell, even in the ML group there's a tier system - Bryant's in a whole other league from even the four listed above, personally Russell's the only one really close. While guys like Edwards, Almora, Candelario, Contreras, and McKinney can hang around in this league, even possibly start one day in this league, they can't/haven't hit like those guys up top and shouldn't be viewed to be as automatic as those guys were. I think I'm higher on Almora than everyone else on this board. Almora's second stint at AA, he was a year younger than Inciarte and two younger than Pollock in their respective stints, and his peripherals look pretty similar to their with a little more power than Inciarte and a little less than Pollock. His first season there was plagued with a hamate injury and family issues IIRC, so I'm not as concerned that it was such a down season, especially given his age.

Ive made this comparison before and mid 90s Sammy with tons of Ks, lower averages, and HR totals would be insanely available in the MIF, especially in this run enviroment. If Baez ever gets his strikeout rate down to the worst that Sosa ever posted, he'll be an absolute superstar. 29%?

I would agree. But that's why I said the next move would be to bring in Jackson as the back up/4th OF. With the redundancies/shortcomings Coghlan has on the fit with the team right now I think we should try and maximize his value on what he's done here the past year and get a piece(s) that could more easily help/fit both this year and long term and bring in a guy (Jackson) that fits the team construction better. I don't think it's realistic to expect to sign Jackson or someone of his caliber to be a 4th OF, they're going to want playing time that the Cubs cannot provide. That's part of why I'd be all about putting a package together for Desmond Jennings if you want a 4th OF with CF capabilities. I also have my doubts that the Cubs have the financial breathing room to sign someone in the Jackson tier, but that's secondary to the fact that the Jacksons and Parras of the world are going to want to play every day. Other teams probably have a little more certainty in their corner OFs too. I agree that a Coghlanless world is not a crisis, but I don't think an optionable pitcher(even one with some pedigree like Skaggs) is a big enough prize to downgrade the bench in that way. Coghlan likely will lose value as a bench bat this season, though, and given pitching injuries, extra depth may be warranted. Once the big three OFs sign, Coghlan could have a substantial trade market - he was better than every Rockies OF in 2015, and only Dickerson was better in 2014. I agree that Skaggs/Tropeano are a bit too low of a value, though. Perhaps Cody Anderson of the Indians might be available at that time, if we include a prospect? Then there's the matter of finding a 4th OF: Stubbs has been mentioned, but he's an extreme K% guy on a team that already struggles with that. I prefer Ryan Raburn, who is a bit of a gamble (last two years, -1.3 WAR and 1.4 WAR) but clearly still has batting ability and profiles like a 4th OF. That said, if we'd rather keep Coghlan, I could see (barely, in the latter case) two trades that still net us some depth: Tropeano for Szczur, and Alcantara for Skaggs. Szczur has never gotten a good long look in the majors, so his struggles might be explainable as a result of inconsistent playing time, and of some BABIP luck (minors indicate he could sustain a higher rate than he has so far in the majors). Tropeano can't seem to go 6 innings consistently - Wada might be an apt comparison. The value is probably roughly even, with a little more upside for the Angels. Alcantara for Skaggs would be a pure risk trade; both have a high chance of flaming out, but both have a lot of potential. I can't see the Angels doing this though if they think Skaggs will come back completely, unless they really like Alcantara.

Seems to me, since the Heyward/Zobrist signings everyone has been looking at the Cubs to try and make a trade for 3.5+ WAR starting pitching or an ace reliever without giving up Soler or Baez; needless to say, the cost of pitchers in trade this offseason has been well beyond questionable. So my wishlist for the rest of the offseason includes Tim Lincecum and Chad Billingsley. Both have talent, both have injury issues, and both would likely benefit from a year (or two, in Billingsley's case) in which they can ease themselves back into starting roles. A pitching coach like Bosio can't hurt, either. For Billingsley, I'd offer 3 years, with an expected progression from minors+bullpen to bullpen to starter. I'd imagine incentives could help. For Lincecum, a 2-year deal that focuses on Bullpen->Starter could work, maybe with a mutual 3rd year. Lincecum may want more guaranteed money than incentives, though. Perhaps in both cases offer opt-outs (or mandatory trades) if they don't make the rotation in the final year, or something along those lines. Both pitchers gain access to healing time, with an in-contract plan to get back to starting and access to a top pitching coach. The Lincecum deal would give the Cubs the possibility of an elite reliever in the first year, and a backup plan for Hammel in the second. The Billingsley deal would give the Cubs the possibility of an elite reliever in the second year (the first year is spectacularly unlikely given recent performance), and a backup plan for Lackey in the third. Thoughts?

http://www.papertrophy.com/ should be able to make an amalgam of all the other teams

Almora should be 3rd on that list, and Contreras first, IMO. Agree about putting Almora on the list, but I see Torres and Candelario (and maybe Almora) over Contreras, who had a .370 BABIP in 2015 (highest previously was .345 in 17 games, or .337 in 60); Contreras has never really shown up on anyone's "tools" radar before either (at least, not that I'm aware of). While the BABIP spike did correspond with a drop in K%, I have to imagine Candelario's sustained rates and Torres' raw tools edge them over Contreras at least for this year. Almora is a harder case, but his stats and tool-ratings in the minors seem to match up nicely with Ender Inciarte's (on an eye-test, at least), though Almora's a year younger at each level and did effectively miss a year. He has less speed and a little more power, but his crazy feel for defense largely 'hides' the lack of speed.

If we could get Bauer for that package, I suspect the trade would have been made already. Maybe not that particular package, no, especially with the rest of the suggested return. However, Bauer hasn't managed to break a 4.00 FIP yet, in about two seasons of work, so it's not like he's still the uber-prospect everyone pegged him as. The Indians have had a lot of success, with Salazar and Carrasco and Kluber, and all three of those have developed quicker than Bauer. I did find an mlbtr article stating they wanted impact talent; maybe Torres/Candelario/Vogey for the change of scenery? Where do you think the pain points are for the Cubs and Indians if the Cubs want Bauer?

This whole TOR thing seems to illuminate a certain tension between upside and risk; Fangraphs noted the potential risk of losing Arrieta or Lester to injury, and the trade rumors we hear seem to involve trading upside to reduce overall risk. In this frame of reference, Spain's idea amounts to trading upside and time against risk; we hope that an injury doesn't force our hand (and lead to a greater overpay), while watching the value of TOR starters drop as contracts shorten, and prospects develop. I think it may be possible to make a deal now, though, that provides TOR upside without drastically increasing risk across the team: Trevor Bauer and Dominic Brown. As we know, the Indians are looking to convert pitching into outfield help. Since Carrasco or Salazar require a Soler centerpiece, Bauer's lack of similar success should reduce the requested OF value - we may be able to make a Coghlan/Candelario/Vogelbach for Bauer/(Mike Clevenger +? Josh Martin or Giovanni Soto?) deal. This gives the Indians (who actually have OF depth about a year away) a chance to improve their outfield/wait for their prospects without breaking up their rotation, and near-term prospects for 3b and DH which are organizational weaknesses, while giving the Cubs a big-time Bosio project with 3-WAR potential and some pitching or bullpen depth in the suggested names above. To replace Coghlan, Cubs sign Dominic Brown, who profiles a lot like Coghlan when we signed him (demonstrated offensive upside, hasn't quite been able to put it together in a bad organization, 15-20 K% and decent power/BB%). Risk goes up slightly, but since Coghlan was not expected to be an every day player, Brown should be able to provide an acceptable replacement with some upside of his own, protected against his injury history by playing off the bench.

Well, I did mention Pollock as the pipe dream. The DBacks value him correctly; they declined a Miller/Pollock swap with the Braves, apparently. But you bring up a really good point about the Castro valuation. If the DBacks value Castro enough, the Cubs might still be able to swing Pollock by trading for a pitcher first, then sending Castro and pitcher. Miller would be the best option, but the Braves seem to think that they should get back lots of major-league ready talent (again, they asked for Pollock straight-up) and aren't interested in tanking at all. Trading for Miller seems like an automatic overpay. Quintana might not be scouty enough for the DBacks. Also, convincing the White Sox to take back, say, Candelario, McKinney, Contreras, Vogelbach might take some doing, despite the immediacy of impact (each is likely 2017 callup) and fit. They'd likely demand the further inclusion of (one of) Hendricks, Jimenez, Baez, Castro, Torres, at which point the trade gets a little expensive for my tastes. Cashner might be the easiest; I can't see Preller passing up Cashner plus for Hendricks, and Cashner looks a lot like Miller scouting-wise. The biggest problem here is Cashner's remaining control and age; I have no idea how the DBacks perceive that. I have to imagine such a deal would hinge on Cashner being extended, and/or the inclusion of one of Contreras, Torres, Jimenez, McKinney (depending on how the DBacks value nearness, fit, and tools). Again, though, the above REALLY depends on the Castro valuation. Getting two highly-valued players, at positions of need, might encourage them to give up Pollock; presumably Tomas would take right field with Inciarte shifting over.

I think the DBacks might do that - Russell may not have shown much offense yet, but likely will, and has a LOT more control left than Pollock. I'd actually be nervous from the Cubs side - I'd want an extension on Pollock if that happened.

Since the Cubs seem to be squeezed for payroll (that is, signing a top-available is unlikely), and since our top CF options seem to be somewhat pricey (Austin Jackson, Span, and Fowler all are predicted to pull at least $10mil/year), I went looking around for other (preferably younger, cheaper) possibilities. I was most intrigued by Ender Inciarte, a 25-year-old CF/RF on the Diamondbacks. His defense has been above league average, which would help Soler and Schwarber in the outfield; and his major league contact rates have been 78.7 and 80.8, which could benefit our strikeout-prone offense. The rub is that the Diamondbacks appear to be looking for young, controllable pitching. My proposal is to use Hendricks as the key piece in the deal; the two players provided similar value last year, although Hendricks has one more year of control so prospects would have to balance the deal. Not spending $$$ on a CF should allow the Cubs to sign 2 of Shark/Lackey/Leake and still maintain the prospects necessary to trade for Teheran or Miller. Gaining a defensive CF like Inciarte should also protect Soler, Schwarber, and Coghlan in the outfield. The pipe dream, of course, would be acquiring Pollock (the DBacks CF), but he just had a career year and I have to imagine the DBacks would demand something like Schwarber and prospects to go along with Hendricks in return.

Arrieta had poor FIPs with the Orioles, too. So does the rental Chen; so does Gausman (4.46 this year). The Orioles' pitching philosophy seems to mandate heavy fastball use: Gausman, Arrieta, Strop, Chen, Bedard, and Tillman have ALL thrown between 60% and 70% fastballs in *every* year they got meaningful time with the Orioles; the lone exception being the year Bedard through fewer than 60% and was traded (for Tillman and Jones) in the offseason. The Orioles are known to have weird ideas about pitching; remember Dylan Bundy being told to shelf his cutter and throw more sliders for his health? We solved the goofy pitching philosophy problem for Arrieta, and as a prospect Tillman was more highly rated going into the 2009 season. In short: The Orioles have no idea how to get a pitcher to pitch, we can fix that problem, and Tillman is likely quite valuable to us in that circumstance. Let's get him. Also of note: Orioles fans at least seem to have tired of him. He really may come decently cheap.

As long as we're looking to raid the Orioles, why not try for Chris Tillman? He's been 200+ innings the last two years, is 27, and would probably lock down that 5th starter spot. The Orioles have apparently just tried to extend him without success, may be willing to take a package instead. He's no rental, but should still cost less than Gausman and Bosio's already shown great success in fixing Baltimore's pitching messes. The Orioles believe they're still in the window, so anyone we send would need to be close to or at the majors, with control. CF, 3B, SS, C, RF have all produced this year for them according to fangraphs, and their 1B prospect, while not close, seems like a decent bet for success; they have some That leaves the Orioles looking for DH, LF, maybe 2B, and for upper-end pitching talent (they are dry after Bundy and Hunter Harvey in class-A). To that end, is a package of Vogelbach plus Johnson or Underwood for Tillman a decent starting point for conversation?

I poked around in the stats from last season a bit, looking to find or make quick-and-dirty evaluations of shots/game, consistency, instances of goalies dominating and being dominated, and I tried to find something to support Crow. I used only goalies with at least 10 starts, and got stats from http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/NHL_2015_goalies.html. My findings, in short: I used SA/GS. Crow ranked 24th fewest shots/start by this measure, at 29.66 SA/GS, out of 62 goalies with at least 10 starts. Darling and Raanta had ~32 each. I looked at shutouts/really-bad-start (RBS on hockey-reference, # of starts with a SV%<.850); Crawford had a 0.5. 31 players had at least a 0.5, including Darling (no RBS, 1 SO) and Raanta (who had a 2 SO/RBS). Only 6 players were older than Crawford, and only one faced more than 31 SA/GS. Failing to make this cut were Hiller, Backstrom, Luongo, and Emery. Of the 31 above, Crawford was 4th most consistent ((SO+RBS)/GS), at ~10%, with only Kinkaid (no SO or RBS!, 0%), Darling (1 SO, ~7%), and Bobrovsky(~10%) scoring better than Crow. Next best was at ~14%; the highest was ~45%. Raanta scored 25% even. Crow's best stat was QS%, which was starts with a SV%>(league, I think) average save%. Of goalies with at least 10 starts, only Pekka Rinne, Darling, and Hammond were better. Crawford's consistency is a major point in his favor; he almost always gives his team a chance. That said, he rarely wins one for the team (just 2 regular-season shutouts). His best stat - QS% - is not utterly elite, as he's 2.5% off Rinne's stat, and Hammond dominates both by ~4%, but it is the top of the lower tier (he's 0.6% and 1.1% off the next best pair). However Darling has shown strong consistency and a better QS% in his short time, and potential comps for Crawford as he ages are rather terrifying (Luongo in particular, thanks to the contract situation). The opportunity cost of Crow might very well be Seabrook or Hjalmarsson. Those guys do a LOT to make Crow look good, and it's a position where we're weak (yes, we have TVR/Pokka in the wings, but those guys replace Leddy and whoever gets traded. We'd still need to fill for Oduya, assuming he's gone). The Depth at Goalie just seems much, MUCH deeper right now than at Defense, and a Crow trade could very well shore up the defensive depth, making the Darling/Raanta job easier. Subjectively, it looked like Crow lost a step this year, like he was a bit slower to react to the puck; a problem neither Darling nor Raanta had. This resulted in a lot of bad rebounds at other times in the season, and it seemed to me like the rest of the team had to step up to get him past the hump. If Crawford is right on the edge of some sort of reaction-time boundary right now, and other teams still value him highly, now is absolutely the last time to get rid of him before he becomes a cap-albatross. So I think I'm with Tim. Trading Crawford avoids the risk of getting stuck with a Luongo-contract, which may have hamstrung the Canucks, while allowing us to shore up the D-line depth, thus protecting the talented but perhaps not quite as elite goaltending depth we have; not trading him may hit us in our already weak defensive depth and expose Crawford at a time in his life when he's particularly vulnerable to a sudden and precipitous decline. Since the team we trade him to will likely have decent defensive depth of their own (if they send us defensemen), a trade could be in Corey's best interests as well.

I feel like I missed something this offseason - is anyone else surprised to see Gioskar Amaya at catcher?

Since the consensus seems to be that Castillo is a stopgap, what does everyone think about Rene Rivera? He's playing at about 2 fWAR this year for the Padres, shouldn't cost any draft pick, and StatCorner loves his framing abilities (which should make Arrieta et. al. even more effective). The Cubs could give him a longer contract, too, since he's been a backup for so long, offering him more time while Castillo stopgaps and using the extra years to have him mentor Schwarber or Zagunis when one of them comes up.

6 games over pythag, 2 dominant pen arms, but yeah, still seems off I just stumbled on a BP page looking for expected records: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/standings/ The three measurements they have are (in order) Pythag, player-stat based, and player-stat-based by strength of schedule. The notable performances (6 wins +/- in any of the three measurements) are owned by the Yankees, Phillies, Tigers, and Cubs. The Yankees and Phillies both outplayed expectations, Tigers and Cubs both underplayed. The Tigers, Cubs, and Yankees all get further away from their record with each successive measurement BP offers; that is, player stats and schedule strength suggest the Tigers and Cubs should have been better than Pythagorean Expectation does, while it suggests that the Yankees should have been worse than their Pythagorean. Unfortunately, as you mentioned, the bullpen may have a lot to do with that. I don't know where to find information on bullpens to try and correlate with these measures; but going back using just Pythag with http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/2006-standings.shtml shows Girardi is +8 all-time as a manager in 7 seasons. ESPN's RPI (http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/rpi) gives a +2 over the same margin. Not sure what to think of any/all of this?

Underwood Lake Loux Underwood needs to get on this list close to Johnson; I feel the differences between their talents, injury histories, and closeness to majors make them almost equivalent prospects. Lake has been very interesting this winter (and I had him higher). Loux probably doesn't have a shot at being a core player, but could be instrumental or even stand out (like Phil Coke) in a playoff run sometime in the next few years.

Vitters. (repetition of points already made about floor, TANSTAAPP, injuries, &c.) I will, however, point out that Vitters should be handled better by the new regime than the old regime; Vitters should play well above last year's results. On the other hand, Johnson will probably be of more direct value to the team. If Vitter's bat plays, we'll probably trade him for pitching.

6 Villanueva 7 Lake 8 Vitters Villanueva seems like a good bet to reach the majors and at least be average for us; Lake's offseason/Fall/Winter have been promising. Vitters typically struggles at transitions but will probably still be a good bat for us, and has the time to make that transition, still being quite young. Also, Vitters' struggles at the majors seemed (to me) to be tied to an aggressive approach but he showed a few flashes of patience while he was up (especially with two strikes) that make me think he'll get it sometime within the next few years. Brett Jackson seems to be a favorite at this spot, so I feel the need to defend my leaving him off in favor of other hitters. Jackson's struggles were mechanical to the point that he changed his swing. While this has worked at times in the past (see Sandberg, Ryne), we now know very little about Jackson and his hitting potential. If the change in swing is for the better, he's absolutely number 6 here, but I feel there's just too much risk to even put him in the top ten.

I voted Almora; his work ethic in particular and scouting reports at draft remind me vaguely of Tyler Colvin, who noone thought would develop power. I think the younger, more talented Almora will develop similarly (with regards to improvement in power), and I think the ceiling that implies, combined with his lower risk, makes him a better prospect than Baez. Also, Baez played a season (really more, with a delay from the management change) under Hendry's development system, which probably delayed his development.

Given that today is the first day players could be moved to the 60-day DL (or so I've read), and that the Red Sox have to make room on the 40-man roster for Carpenter, maybe the Red Sox pitched a fit with the intention of delaying the trade to protect their players?

Not Bradley, Soriano. Bradley clogs the basepaths more.

You took off the suit? And agreed that the bullpen is scary right now, but I think it's got enough talent (Heilman, Guzman, Patton) that Rothschild will have it in much better shape control-wise by the end of the year, which should solve the problem.