CubsWin

Cubs could also sweeten the pot with an IFA slot. They certainly won't be needing it this year.

Heard the Maddon comments on La Stella being willing to go to Iowa. Interesting. It may mean the Cubs will go with just 5 infielders to start the season. It's also possible Maddon is saying that now as a way to improve the team's leverage in a possible trade.

It comes down to Szczur or La Stella for the final bench spot. I like Matt for the speed he can bring as a PR, increasinly solid bat, defense and his all-around great guyness, but I just can't see the Cubs keeping him due to the depth the have in the OF. Schwarber, Heyward, Jay, Almora, Zobrist and Bryant provide 6 capable OFers for 3 positions (with Szczur that would be 7 and that's overkill), while without La Stella, the Cubs would have 5 infielders for 4 positions. Is Szczur being released or traded a foregone conclusion? If so, given the lack of leverage the Cubs have with him, can they get anything in a trade for him? He's known quantity and is looking good this spring. If he's simply released, that would open up a 40-man roster spot. It seems increasingly likely that Caleb Smith will either be returned to the Yankees or a minor trade will be made to keep him. (Szczur for Smith?) If he's sent back, that would open up another spot. I wouldn't mind seeing the Cubs add a veteran defense-first catcher to the 40-man so they don't have to bring up Caratini in case of an injury. Corporan and Ali Solis are in-house options but are either above average defensively?

I agree that the chances of him reaching the bigs at some point in 2019 are low. When you consider that he could come up as a reliever, I don't know if it's a less than 1% chance, but it's certainly less than a 50/50 proposition. The main hurdle for me is health. It's a big question mark for every pitcher and especially so for one who's already had TJS. The lesser hurdle is performance. His control/command needs to stay on the trajectory of improvement it's currently on, and he needs to continue to develop FB command and his secondaries (curve and change up). But he's certainly got the talent to move quickly. So, best case scenario, IF he performs well at each level (not that unlikely) AND stays healthy (a little more unlikely), I don't think his lack of innings will hold him back. Cease pitched 67.2 IP between extended spring and Eugene last year. Assuming no time missed and above average to dominant performance, he could hit 100 innings this year, 130+ in 2018 and 160+ in 2019. If he does stay healthy and performs well, he could easily move through 4 minor league levels within 3 seasons. Heck, if he's dominant enough (and stays healthy), he could reach AAA in the 2nd half of next year. There's no way he'd have the innings built up to be a full time rotation piece by 2019, but starting out in the pen, being stretched out and joining the rotation in the 2nd half of 2019 wouldn't be out of the question if his innings limit is around 160. If he keeps being shut down here and there and doesn't pitch over 80 innings this year, the chances of him moving to the pen get a lot greater. But if he's highly effective while healthy, being a reliever could still get him to the bigs by 2019.

From AZ Phil:

It's not off the mound, but Jon Lester looks pretty good throwing to 1st in fielding drills. http://www.espn.com/espn/now?nowId=21-0624296902317318024-4

If Travis pulls a Dexter and makes a surprise appearance at spring training (MLB radio jumped the gun and announced Wood had signed with San Diego on Saturday), I'd love it on a 1-year deal simply for the extended rotation depth. Travis posted a very good ERA last year of 2.95, but I doubt anyone here is fooled by that. His BABIP was unusually low (.215) suggesting he had quite a bit of luck last season. Some of that can be attributed to the Cubs stellar defense, but his career BABIP is 60 points higher. Despite the 2.95 ERA, his FIP (4.54) and xFIP (4.83) are probably closer to his actual performance level. That said, he's better than Brian Duensing. As a situational reliever, Wood was excellent against lefties in 2016 keeping them to a slash line of .128/.208/.239 with a career slash against lefties of .203/.276/.316. That's much better than Duensing's 2015 (his last full season) lefty slash of .284/.413/.364 and his career slash of .232/.286/.328 About the only thing Duensing does better is get ground balls. He'd be more of a "bringing in a guy with runners on base to induce a double play ball" than a LOOGY. Duensing has a solid 46.3% career GB%. However, the additions of Davis and Uehara would potentially free up Rondon (48% for his career), Edwards (51% in 40.2 major league innings) and Strop (54.4% in his career) to be the guy to come in with runners on. It's been widely reported that Maddon intends to have a 13-man pitching staff. Lester Arrieta Hendricks Lackey Montgomery/Anderson Davis Rondon Uehara Strop Edwards Montgomery/Anderson Grimm Wood That looks like a pretty darn good pen to me, though, again, his real value this year wouldn't be as the 8th man in the pen but as rotational depth. After 2 years of remarkable (lucky?) rotational health, Travis essentially becomes the 7th starting pitcher option with Zastryzny, Butler and Mills rounding out 8-10. That's not bad. If the idea is to repeat (and it is), why not sign him? It says a lot that the Cubs have made him an offer. Now it's up to Travis if he wants to start or win...

Reports have the Rays signing Eovaldi for $2 million with a club option for 2018. http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/18672935/nathan-eovaldi-tampa-bay-rays-agree-one-year-2-million-contract If this goes through, the medicals must've really not been to the Cubs liking because I can't see them not being able to beat that contract. Not a big deal, but thought he'd have been a decent lightning in a bottle chance for a rotation spot in 2018.

I would love that, too. Any idea what it would take?

Very true. It's still very early for Eloy. But neither of those guys had the season he had in full season ball at 19 nor did they spend their formative years being developed by this Cubs staff. But I'm with you. It's two big ifs with whether Heyward can rebound and Eloy can make good.

If he continues to struggle at the plate, yes, they'd have to eat a lot of that contract to move him. Of course, he's even more tradable if he returns to form. Obviously, that's the scenario I'm hoping for. Heyward hits along the lines of his career numbers, remains healthy and continues his GG defense in RF. The Cubs are able to move him with prospects for whatever they need at the time while bringing up Eloy at the league minimum to take his place. The defense takes a big hit, but if Eloy progresses as he has been, the bat makes up for it. The Cubs are able to open up some payroll and fill some needs at the same time. But a lot can happen between now and 2019/2020. It's just something to keep in mind when looking at the Cubs payroll options in the years ahead. if heyward "returns to form" i really dont see the cubs moving him to put Eloy Jiminez in his place. They'd probably just keep the 6 WAR outfielder. Ha! Maybe! That would be a great outcome, too. Trade Eloy then! I mentioned two lines later in the post that returning to form would look like him hitting "along the lines of his career numbers" (.262/.346/.415). In his 2 seasons with 6.0 and 6.5 WAR he OPSd .798 and .814. His career average OPS is .761. Regardless, the fact that he's tradable in 2019 & 2020 is worth keeping in mind when discussing the Cubs future payroll possibilities.

Yeah, I was just about to mention this. If Heyward does not return to form and continues to struggle the Cubs may have to explore trades in 19' or 20' where they eat most of his contract, especially if E. Jimenez is ready to take over in RF. Kinda sucks that that is a possibility now, but we did get a WS Championship in year 1 of the contract... If he continues to struggle at the plate, yes, they'd have to eat a lot of that contract to move him. Of course, he's even more tradable if he returns to form. Obviously, that's the scenario I'm hoping for. Heyward hits along the lines of his career numbers, remains healthy and continues his GG defense in RF. The Cubs are able to move him with prospects for whatever they need at the time while bringing up Eloy at the league minimum to take his place. The defense takes a big hit, but if Eloy progresses as he has been, the bat makes up for it. The Cubs are able to open up some payroll and fill some needs at the same time. But a lot can happen between now and 2019/2020. It's just something to keep in mind when looking at the Cubs payroll options in the years ahead.

In this discussion, it's important to keep in mind that according to Cot's Heyward has a full no trade clause in 2017 & 2018 but can be dealt in 2019 & 2020. Heyward can block a trade to 12 teams. After 2020, his 10 & 5 rights kick in and it's a full trade clause again. 2019 and 2020 just happen to be the years when Jimenez will most likely be MLB ready.

To clarify, Cubs will lose $255,000 in bonus pool money in this swap.

It will be interesting to see who the Cubs take with the 27th and 30th picks in this year's draft. The list of decent pitching prospects could get even longer. Cease, De La Cruz, Clifton, Hatch, Albertos and Clark are good start. The Cubs have been so good at scouting and developing position players over the last 5 years that my belief in hitting prospects actually progressing year to year has never been higher. But the arms have been a different story. The biggest success stories so far have been Trevor Clifton and Ryan Williams with a lot more disappointments. De La Cruz, Cease and Albertos have the ability to develop well beyond those two. This year will tell us a lot about the type of pitching talent the Cubs currently have and their ability as an organization to develop them. Longenhagen also mentioned Mekkes as the Cubs best "sleeper" prospect from last year's draft albeit as a reliever. Taken in the 10th round instead of the 3rd (Hatch) or 5th (Clark) probably better qualifies Mekkes as a sleeper than the other two.

Keith Law's Cubs top 17: 1. Eloy Jimenez, OF (Ranked No. 12) 2. Ian Happ, 2B (Ranked No. 63) 3. Dylan Cease, RHP (Ranked No. 86) 4. Albert Almora, OF 5. Oscar de la Cruz, RHP 6. Trevor Clifton, RHP 7. Jeimer Candelario, 3B 8. Eddy Julio Martinez, OF 9. Thomas Hatch, RHP 10. Jose Albertos, RHP 11. Carlos Sepulveda, 2B 12. Victor Caratini, C 13. DJ Wilson, OF 14. Mark Zagunis, OF 15. Donnie Dewees, OF 16. Chesny Young, INF 17. Isaac Paredes, 2B-3B

So, just to recap what's come out in the last few days... MLB's top 100: #14 Eloy Jimenez #28 Ian Happ #75 Albert Almora #77 Dylan Cease #96 Jeimer Candelario ZiPS top 100: #36 Eloy Jimenez #55 Ian Happ #59 Dylan Cease #66 Jeimer Candelario #95 Vic Caratini Keith Law's top 100 #12 Eloy Jimenez #63 Ian Happ #86 Dylan Cease

Along with Happ at #3 among 2B, MLB ranks Candelario #5 at 3B.

I've been wondering about this. If the Cubs get another healthy year out of their rotation again this season, it will be hard to chalk it up to luck. Is coaching, scouting and training staff/philosophy on causing long-term pitching health the latest market inefficiency? Let's see how this year goes...

Me too, craig. It's always fun to see the differing opinions. It would be really boring if everyone agreed. He made the correction on his size eventually, but it does show a lack of familiarity. BP in general doesn't do as good of a job as other sites, in my opinion. For instance, listening to the Pelicans games in the 2nd half, watching the video recaps they do and reading up, it was well documented that Clifton's change up was a big reason why he improved this year. This guy wasn't even aware of that. It's got to be really difficult to write up lists on all the different prospects throughout 30 teams, so I can understand missing some vital info, but this is his job. Maybe we can get the Russians or the Cardinals to hack into it for us. I'd love to read it!

From a bat perspective, and somewhat body type as well, Paredes reminds me a bit of Candelario. If Paredes does indeed start and stay at South Bend this year, they will have each skipped a level in their 2nd year in pro ball (Candelario went from the DSL to the NWL). They each have demonstrated good control of the strike zone and hit for average. They each have shown some power at the early stages of their careers with Candelario continuing to grow into his as he got older. They have each been young for their leagues. They each have faced questions whether they can stick at their respective positions (Candelario has since answered he can stick at 3B), and they each have thicker builds. We haven't had a direct age/level comparison yet. Candelario lit up the DSL as a 17-year-old hitting .337/.443/.478 with 50 BB vs. 42 K and 5 HRs. Paredes surprised as a 17-year-old hitting .305/.359/.443 with 13 BB vs. 20 K and 1 HR at a higher level (Arizona Rookie League). As always with prospects, this year will tell us a lot. Candelario lit up the PCL (a hitter friendly league, for sure) much like he did the DSL 5 years earlier hitting .333/.417/.542 with 38 BB vs. 52 K and 9 HRs in almost the exact same number of PAs. But he had a terrible 1st half in AA. If he starts off 2017 like he finished 2016, he'll have answered some lingering questions and will look a lot more MLB ready. If Paredes makes the jump from rookie ball to full season Low-A successfully (and that's no small feat), he'll have answered some lingering questions about belonging in the Cubs top 10 and depending on how well he does, possibly jump into top 100 overall discussions. It'll be fun to see how they converge/diverge going forward.

The report did use the word "depth" instead of "strength". Read what you will into that. I agree I'd prefer the Cubs not take a high school pitcher with both of their 1st round picks (at the moment I believe they're 27 and 30). But if there truly is good depth at that position, I wouldn't be against getting some in rounds 3 through 6.

Feel free to point out where I did any of this, particularly since we're not even a handful of posts off of you outright taking one of my comments on de la Cruz as a potential TOR and top 25 overall guy way out of context to steer the conversation off that track. There's a point where you need to understand lecturing/talking down to me everytime we disagree won't work when you're clearly not really willing to listen or read what I'm saying just on the basis that you disagree. If you really seek to have a conversation about this, feel free to private message me.

Well said, craig.

Once again, you sought to cherry pick what someone is saying and create straw man arguments instead of understand what they've written with generous listening or even philosophical honesty. So, no it wasn't a good talk. Maybe I'll try again in a few months. Maybe not. No great loss for you either way, I'm sure.