SaorsaDaonnan

I’m predicting a 2021 payroll of around 150, including trade deadline allotment, and then a series of outyear payrolls in the 125-150 range for a while, well into the new CBA after next year. Ricketts said in....I think late 2018 that the org was about 500m over budget on its construction projects, though it was unclear whether that was from expanded ambition or literal overruns. As everybody probably remembers, he originally had a four step plan for the payroll: 1) spend very little while tanking; 2) spend significantly more as the team improves; 3) temporarily spike payroll to a very high level as the team contends and the TV contract arrives; 4) reduce payroll from the spike to a big market level but not an astronomical level. Ricketts’ comments in 2016 suggested he thought they had blown by #2 already during our World Series year....and then his comments in the 2017-2018 offseason sounded like he thought he had approved an early-ish attainment of the peak of that spike. By the following offseason, his comments again sounded like a four-part thought: a) that the peak was not going to last for long; b) that the team would soon retreat to a below-LT level and call that a high payroll a la 4); c) that the 500m was a problem that would probably be addressed in the early 20s by dipping BELOW the about-to-be new normal, baseline of 200ish; and d) that his conclusion from year one of the Darvish contract and the first few years of the Heyward contract was that analytics and the judgment of the best experts are not reliable enough to justify large contracts in the future. In other words, Ricketts was signaling long before the pandemic that almost none of the core would be resigned, that few or no other major talents would be signed in the forseeable future, and that for about the first half of the decade, despite the new TV contract, the new “core” would be players like Bote, Happ, Caratini, Mills, etc. Of course not necessarily one particular player rather than another, but the general idea of cheap and mediocre as a foundational asset and really the team’s new identity. Based on Ricketts’ comments, the question wasn’t so much how much of the 2015-2021 core would be kept into the future as whether that future would involve any franchise players at all, outside of potential miracles from the minors like Brennen Davis or Marquez. Based on his statements, we would be lucky to keep even one of Bryant/Baez/Contreras or sign even one premium FA in the first half of the 2020s, though we might keep Rizzo or something. And that was BEFORE the pandemic and BEFORE the probably scary-to-fatcats loss of the abuser in chief. So IMO there is every reason to think that we’re looking at a future where Ricketts cuts the payroll to get down to 200 or so, then immediately cuts it again for construction debt repayment, then cuts it a third time to cover pandemic revenue loss and any Biden administration costs...and then leaves it down there certainly through the labor negotiations next year, before (at the earliest) moving gradually back toward the eventual of 200..maybe by way of 10m/year increments as debt is paid off and revenue losses are replenished. So, like, maybe 150, 140, 150, 160, 170, 180, 190, 200, 200 over the rest of the decade. If somebody thinks I’m wrong, I’d love to hear why...but don’t just give me “it’s all speculation until we actually find out.” We all know that already; the question is where the evidence points. But otherwise, I think we should all be expecting crap like “we traded Kimbrel and 10m for a short season A baller with two TJ surgeries under his belt and recent triceps problems, basically just to save 4-5m”, “we non-tendered Schwarber after failing to find a trade partner,” and “we traded Darvish and Bryant for a controllable #5 and a utility IF with four years of control and nothing else, having specifically informed the other teams that we wanted salary relief rather than value in return. And no, this cash will not be plowed back into the payroll, but will be used to cover fixed expenses from the remaining 2021 payroll and to patch up shortfalls in 2020 revenue.” “Also, the Chicago Cubs are pleased to announce that all future home games will be played on the Terminex Playing Surface at Wrigley Field, part of the Cialis Sporting Complex at Addison. Round the bases with Cialis!” “Get past second base with Cialis!” “Hit a home run with Cialis!”

I question the premise. 2018 was a 95 (pythag 94) win year despite terrible, net improbable new pitcher implosions, and was only prevented from a postseason run by the Russell crisis and/or the failure to handle it quickly and appropriately. Maddon didn’t even read the report and deserved to be fired then, for that reason and others, but some combination of sentimentality, PR concerns, and possibly (my guess) ownership wanting to protect old-boys-who-protect-other-old-boys meant that he got to stick around and screw up our team & its vibe for a further season, as did Russell. And even then, it was a freak spate of injuries just after the deadline that did the team in, with Hamels’ rushed return not helping. Freed of all the organizational drama, and with a normal and consistent amount of fielding practice from spring training ‘19 onward , there’s no reason this team could not have made another run, even accounting for those freak injuries. What’s really happened is that since early 2017, when Lackey looked cooked, Monty struggled, Heyward started to look like he wasn’t ever going to hit again with so many years left on his contract, Schwarbs had some strange outcomes, Montero got dumped, and the team had the problem of being re-invited to the White House, Cubs baseball was more stressful than fun. After a hard-fought series against the Nats, we were exhausted in our third straight NLCS and the Dodgers kicked our ass. Then the pitching disaster of 2018 happened while Willson fell off the face of the earth, then the Russell thing piled onto already not feeling great about Chapman and Murphy, and then Joe and the org (or just ownership? seems like an ownership level decision to me...) failed to handle it. After that we sat on our ass all offseason and cried poor, right when a lot of people had always thought we might make a huge move, and just when we desperately needed to turn the page. And then 2019 was kinda just a second helping of that, due to inaction followed by a second year of bad injury luck. The main impetus over the last couple years for us fans to harp on our outfield or the age & expense of our rotation isn’t analysis. It’s pain and frustration that what should have been epic years have not been —pain and frustration that’s been intensified by the preventability and waste of it all, and by the fact that it’s all happened during really bad times in our non-baseball lives when we really could have used something to uncomplicatedly enjoy. When people say they want to blow it up, generally they mean that they want the sense of optimism and control that go along with projecting a promising future rather than the stress that goes along with the times when the moment is now, the clock is ticking, and it’s unclear that the results will be there. In other words, it’s not an analysis at all, it’s a desire to reboot a game that’s gone badly askew. The lack of obvious answers comes from the fact that it isn’t an analytical problem in the first place. There’s nothing wrong in baseball terms with extending a couple of our core players, while either trading or playing out the other couple, depending on possible returns, and giving time to Caratini, Happ, Bote, Hoerner, Mills, Alzolay, and the kids in the pen while waiting to see how Marquez and Davis and Amaya develop. We keep talking about building a young team from the farm and acting like it’s an ineffable mystery, but those guys are already here, right in front of us for the most part. The only reason we keep missing it is that we’re tired of being let down, and sometimes mad enough to contemplate throwing the baby out along with the bathwater. Probably we trade KB and extend Rizzo in the offseason, then sign Javy at some point between ST 2021 and ST 2022, and then mostly fill in around them with the younger crew, plus Darvish, Hendricks, and Heyward of course. There’s no reason the front office (or any front office, I should say, since I think Theo’s an FA after 2021 as well) should refuse to consider outside-the-box alternatives, but there’s no imperative to do so in baseball terms. If the worst that can happen is that a couple heroes leave in 2021 having given us one more year to compete and a draft pick, that actually isn’t that bad. Of course you take a good deal if one comes along, but the alternative isn’t something to freak out about. One more year to compete with a completely intact great core would be a solid plan A, and since it looks like our plan B, all the better. Again, there’s no reason to stay inside this box if a better idea comes along. But the intense feeling that something profound must change is just that, a feeling. We already have a good team with a good future and good leaders. All we need to start having fun again is a couple hot weeks next month, and maybe a damn roll of the dice to go our way for once, like it hasn’t since we all got swallowed up in this hellish twilight zone four years ago.

Well, my username is gaelic for "this name was obviously created by a tween," but otherwise you are too kind. :hello:

Damn you Peavy trade, and also Brian Roberts trade, and Brian Dopirak, and Angel Guzman’s teasing arm, and Andy Sisco and Felix Pie and Corey Patterson, and Wood’s health and Prior’s whatever and whatever the hell happened on that plane in 2004, and that damn foul ball and Agon booting that grounder and the idea of Kyle flippn’ Farnsworth being a shutdown reliever, not to mention the half-dead corpses of Howry and Remlinger, and Latroy as an unwilling closer and clogging the bases and Nomar’s groin injury and Neifi playing 200 games a year with 1000 PAs and Todd Hundley and Roberto Novoa and Julian Tavares rolling the ball to first, and the sad end to that magical year Fred McGriff, Rondell White, Bill Mueller, Delino DeShields, and Flash Gordon played ok but turned out to be worse than Matt Stairs, EY, Ricky Gutierrez, Ron Coomer, Jeff Fassero and Roosevelt Brown, and Juan Cruz’s control and Z’s temper and Michael Barrett getting shipped out like a punk and the corked bat and Sammy getting hit in the head and sneezing and cheating in the first place, and the year we were all wrong about Jason Dubois and the year we were all right about Murton getting screwed, and all those years when our entire rotation was on the DL and it was Glendon Rusch starting five days a week, and Angel Hernandez the nicest-ever-guy umpire who somehow genuinely went blind whenever we took the field, and Stony working with Hawk instead of us and Mark Bellhorn’s evaporation after 2002 and the fact that we lost Maddux in the first place and had to play against him in ‘03, and the fact that Ryno and Dunston and Grace and Andre and Sut never made it, and that Billy and Fergie didn’t, and that Ronnie and Ernie didn’t live to see it, and most of all, the fact that we’re going to remember garbage names like Chapman and Russell whenever we think back on it, and everything that happened later that month, and that we live in a world where such pieces of horsefeathers mostly just walk around and go about their days like they’re normal and it’s ok, and the fact that about half the population apparently has its head so far up its ass that it agrees with that, and that that might even be the bulk of human history, and that the Cubs are still sitting on their damn hands while their last chance to handle a tragic situation with decency continues to go up in smoke, and that several of them are probably too busy counting their prospective money from the upcoming TV deal to really even pay that much attention, and that Joe for a while couldn’t even be bothered to read the article and Jake didn’t even vote and the way the rest of us might soon either be in bed with Sinclair or out altogether, and the bros who keep asking questions and the fact that all of this horsefeathers is stuff actual people actually even wanted, and that when I visited Ernie’s grave in Dec of 16 I carried with me more bad news than good, and that his Cubs and mine are a part of that, though maybe not all of them if you squint right, and those Cubs “fans” who called us slurs that I was hearing for the first time when I wanted Darryl Strawberry’s autograph when I was five and waited by the bus, and whatever dogshit experiences or messed up early childhood environments/biopsychosocial factors made them that way, and the fact that it continues, and the way nobody changed their mind after Access Hollywood or any of the 11k times we’ve had warnings about Russell and that this cycle has not been broken, and gamergate and Charlottesville and the fact that the same one or two stories keep coming up but half the country keeps saying it’s the people who seek justice and healing who are the problem, because other people aren’t really real or the world doesn’t matter or other people’s pain is all a big joke anyway. Yes, today everything has to be about Russell — or rather about the org finally and belated taking a stand against his [expletive], and doing what it can to help his exes and kids.

Needs to be banned for life from all MLB facilities and events, to say nothing of released. It’s that simple. (Not that this was unclear months ago, just that it bears repeating.)

I'm not done with the sign-a-starting-catcher plan. While having Contreras focus on catching made great sense in 2017, I'm not sure it does now. Under my proposal (which again is only for non-Harper scenarios) Willson would get about 200 plate appearances in left, about the same in right, and a further 200 or so as the backup catcher. As others have pointed out, this would mean making him re-familiarize himself with the outfield while also trying to rekindle his bat, which admittedly would not be easy, but also wouldn't be utterly unfamilar. He's been in the corners before, and he's been a good hitter before, and Iapoce should already really help with restoring his swing & his approach. He just needs to put it all together again, as he has done before. Here's my case: Willson is an offensive asset that we control inexpensively for a long time, who also somewhat plays catcher. Ordinarily we think that playing the scarcest defensive position is the best way to maximize player value, at least unless they are a true butcher, which Willson isn't, or unless you have massively better alternatives already on your team, which we don't. But since Willson is actually a gifted athlete, even by mlb standards, I would argue that his case is more complicated. With at least average speed, good reaction times, a strong arm, and an intense attitude, I think Willson has the ability to become an at-least average corner outfielder in terms of defense. If you disagree with that, then you'll likely dismiss my whole argument. But if you agree, consider this: catcher is a physically punishing position. If an ordinary player declines at rate X per year, a catcher declines at a rate maybe more like 2x/year. (Or whatever -- the point isn't the exact value of the multiplier, just the idea that it's nontrivially greater than 1.) With most catchers, that's not something you can do anything about, because most are so defensively limited that there aren't many alternatives. But with a highly athletic catcher like Willson, or Biggio a couple decades back, there ARE alternatives --- ones that offer the chance of extending the value of his main asset much further into the future. So, while normally you calculate the value of moving along the defensive spectrum by subtracting the defensive penalty from the value of having a good bat at that position, in Willson's case there is more to consider. Rather than being a simple case of scarcity advantage minus defensive penalty, in his case it's scarcity advantage MINUS defensive penalty MINUS accelerated asset depreciation as compared to how he'd age as a corner OF...and if you buy the idea that, with some practice, he could become not just a replacement level defender but an ML-average one, that would be another thing you're giving up, and another thing to subtract as well. Since we control Willson's rights for another four years, and may wish to sign him beyond that, I'd say there's plenty of reason to worry about his future, even for those who (unethically, in my opinion) think that organizations have no general responsibility to look out for their player's futures beyond organizational self interest, MLB policy, or the law. And on top of this, Willson has been overplayed in the last couple years, quite significantly if you ask me. By giving him such a tremendous workload, Joe has not only artificially aged him beyond his actual age and number of years behind the plate, but has also reduced his productivity in the short term through excess fatigue. Of course it's impossible for fans to definitely sort out whether his down year was the result of last year's hitting philosophy, a hidden injury, or just burnout from overuse, but the point is that the last of these is a very important factor all on it's own -- overplaying anyone, but especially pitchers and catchers, messes them up, both short term and long. And Joe has done this, and likely will continue to, and future managers might as well. So, my proposal is 1) that the reduction in fatigue and wear & tear that playing more time in the OF would bring AT LEAST balances out the risk of a slower return to offensive form, 2) that keeping Willson healthier and, if you will, younger over the next four years will be very helpful, and 3) that the defensive productivity uptick that we might see from Willson as he settles into a primarily OF role might be a nice cherry on top, while also making it easier to do platoon matchups in the OF and expanding depth. In fact, I'd rather see him as an OF-only player at this point, garnering 300 or so PAs in each corner, than remaining exclusively a catcher. But best of all, I think, would be a mix, where he's both a frequent OF-er AND our backup catcher...except that our backup catcher would then a plus offensive contributor still capable of playing a whole season as the main catcher in the event of injury. And, with your "backup catcher" already in the OF in the event of an injury, you'd have a great deal more flexibility in terms of pinch hitting and defensive substitutions as well. I'm not saying that this is better than Harper. But I am saying it seems worth thinking about if we don't go that way, and like it might be better than the Brantleys or McCutchens of the world. An FA catcher like Grandal or Ramos would be a pretty manageable risk on a four year-ish deal, and then we'd have an improvement in offensive (by replacing an OF with Contreras) and defensive output, as well as greater depth at a key position. Plus, an upgrade in pitch framing and game calling would have the potential to really help our staff... :flythew:

proposal for plan B offseason: get a solid catcher. play him ~2/3 of the time, with Contreras being our newfound outfield bat as well as our backup catcher. this will protect Contreras’ knees/body and keep him fresher, preventing Joe from destroying his hit tool again via fatigue, and protecting his career from too many cumulative innings behind the dish. it will also mean better pitch framing and maybe game calling, and putting Contreras’ bat in for J-Hey or Schwarbs when they face bad matchups. (I don’t recall what his OF defense is like, but his athleticism and hard charging attitude seem like a recipe for at least adequacy there, given reps.) OBVIOUSLY I would prefer to add a generational talent. let’s not be dumb about that. but if the reports of fake poverty are accurately representing ownership’s choices, we may have to go another way, and to me this seems preferable to the Brantley/McCutchen route— in a way it gives us two players rather than one. Realmuto is beyond our means, but Ramos or even Grandal could fit, and paired with an impact lefty reliever in trade and a cheap, glove-only SS, should be enough to solve the team’s needs. (Though yeah, the fans are right to expect more.).

oh. that is actually much better!

If nothing else, a relatively current, easy-to-use post will make it all the easier to call guys who don't look up basic stuff idiots

NOTES: 1) A lot of what you see above is arbitrary. I basically did BA's top 20, plus a couple extra I picked based on my own (probably not especially insightful) opinions, and then ranked them in an order I found intuitive, without any explicit method. In general my thought was that this would approximate the level of detail and notability that non- or less-than-regular followers of the minors, like myself, would benefit from. 2) I wrote down the stats for the hitters yesterday or the day before, and those of the pitchers today, so there's a slight mismatch in the data there. (Except Hernandez and Amaya, who I wrote down today). 3) Since it was all done by hand, the chances of a typo lurking somewhere in there are pretty high. 4) Obviously it's didn't preserve the formatting I was using when I posted. Maybe a spreadsheet lies somewhere in the future...

PITCHERS AND THROWERS GS IP ERA H BB K SP Pierce Johnson Kane County (A) 10 53 2.89 52 15 60 Juan Paniagua (has not played) Alberto Cabrera Tenn (AA) 11 69.2 3.70 64 25 66 Paul Blackburn (has not played) Duane Underwood (has not played) Dillon Maples Kane County (A) 5 21.2 7.06 20 12 23 Trey McNutt Iowa (AAA) 0 22.2 5.16 29 13 17

Hey guys, As draft day approaches I note that our community seems to have no simple, unified system for presenting the current state of the team's minor league organizations. I propose that this thread be made into one, and will take the first steps in this post. POSITION PLAYERS AND DH AB (duh) HR SB/CS CF Albert Almora Kane County (A) 40 .475/.523/.625 0 0/2 Brett Jackson Iowa (AAA) 142 .228/.315/.372 2 5/4 Matt Szczur Tenn (AA) 202 .252/.355/.376 2 14/5 Corner OF Jorge Soler Daytona (A+) 117 .294/.265/.503 8 5/1 DH Dan Vogelbach Kane County (A) 212 .283/.346/.448 8 3/1 3B Christian Villanueva Tenn (AA) 189 .259/.319/.429 4 4/9 Josh Vitters Iowa (AAA) 63 .270/.343/.449 3 1/0 Jeimer Candelario Kane County (A) 197 .259/.344/.360 1 0/0 Junior Lake (has not played this year) SS Javier Baez Daytona (A+) 210 .281/.322/.579 9 4/1 Arismendy Alcantara Tenn (AA) 199 .281/.350/.482 9 15/1 Marco Hernandez Kane County (A) 165 .248/.263/.315 1 8/4 2B Logan Watkins Tenn (AA) 188 .229/.348/394 5 5/8 Gioskar Amaya Kane County (A) 194 .263/.324/.376 1 7/2 1B (bupkis) C (bupkis)

I swore off message boards a few years back, but damn it, I'm too excited to care at this point! This far into it it's hard to imagine what else there could be to say (didn't we all make up our minds months ago) but it will certainly be fascinating to watch it all go down... I, for one, want Pujols to go into the HOF with a Cubs hat and about nine more rings!

A trade doesn't have to directly improve the viability of a team's roster in order to be good. If it brings in more talent than it ships out, it improves the team's ability to make further trades from a more advantageous position. The trade you describe could actually be a great thing for Team A, since the new pitcher could be dealt for a more attractive package than could the two position players they started with.

Schaefer was suspended for buying HGH based on an investigation, not any positive test. Hmmm.... ah, other people were moving toward to that conclusion first!

This, if true, changes the story a bit. could it have been HGH? not sure if that would be consistent with the medical treatment alibi -although that story could be BS anyway- but it would be consistent with the PED-but-not-steroid rumors

the question remains: would Trammel do a better job? Who knows, but Lou being kicked out or suspended for backing up his player wouldnt be a big deal, and definately wouldnt hinder our chances at winning the 1-3 games hes suspended for. I thought you were saying that Lou being out (ejected/suspended) would be the third win in the win-win-win scenario?

the question remains: would Trammel do a better job?

you'd like me to list each of the functions? ok. is Trammel likely to... ...fill out a better lineup card than Lou -or- manage the starter's pitch count better -or- make better lineup/pitching changes -or- make better decisions about weekly relief pitcher usage patterns and monthly starter usage patterns -or- make better roster management decisions (i.e. decisions about 25- and 40-man rosters) -or- do a better job of firing up/calming down/focusing the players -or- do a better job of managing the things players work on during practice/rehab -or- do a better job of deflecting media attention away from the players who don't want/need it -or- handle the umpires more effectively -or- order better food spreads for the clubhouse -or- do a better job of helping the rookies manage their money intelligently -or- do a better job of helping the rookies interact with women more kindly -or- do a better job of encouraging safe sex -or- do a better job of designing the team's personal appearance standards (ex: by instituting the obligatory mustache rule) -or- by helping the team pull better pranks on the opposing team (shall I go on?)

not irrational. there's no logical contradiction involved in saying that Bradley should drop the appeal. the argument is this: whether or not it's correct, it's certainly coherent. the position is that 1) players have a right to challenge the league's decision when they believe that it is unreasonable, 2) players have a duty to do what's best for their team, and 3A) when the right conflicts with the duty, the duty wins. other positions: 3B) when the right conflicts with the duty, the right wins 3C), when the right conflicts with the duty, the right wins if the damage to the player is large, but the duty wins if the damage to the player is small 3D) when the right conflicts with the duty, the right wins if the damage to the team is small, but the duty wins if the damage to the team is large these principles describe different interpretations of what is best according baseball ethics; note that something could be best yet not ethically obligatory. that, in fact, is my position in all of this: I say that it's ethically best, but nonobligatory, that Bradley drop the appeal.

From the standpoint of Bradley getting the boot, I agree. It was too quick. However, Milton ends up being hung out to dry a little bit by being the only one putting up the fight. If Lou is out there, now Bradley has a little more support. Instead, it just looks like Milton being Milton. And this is an actual complaint Milton had every right to make, IMO. If Lou goes out to argue balls and strikes he gets tossed and quite possibly suspended. So its a win win situation! is Trammel likely to fill out a better lineup card than Lou?

smart people, these front office types

I do. each time someone sings the stretch, you get a strong reaction (=attention) from anyone who a) likes the celebrity b) dislikes the celebrity c) likes to see celebrities from the particular genre that this person is from d) likes to see celebrities in general e) likes it when celebrities seem more "human" and "accessible" when they pop up in unexpected contexts, do things that they're very average at, and have semi-casual conversations right before the viewer's eyes f) likes it when celebrities humiliate themselves g) likes it when people of any description humiliate themselves that adds up to a lot of people, and, importantly, often is going to be a group composed of people who might not have been paying rapt attention to the game beforehand

I'd like that too, but why should what you want or what I want be criterial for what the organization should do? we "serious fans" are only one slice of their market, and it's hard to imagine that most casual viewers would rather listen to an organ than watch a minor celebrity

\\