dew1679666265

The Cubs are 6th in the NL in wOBA (.319) and tied for 6th in the NL in OPS (.727). They're slightly above average to average on offense, not below average. A fairly significant upgrade at first and a slight to moderate downgrade at third could have a big impact on the offensive production. Then you can also include adding one of the best pitchers in the majors to the rotation because of that downgrade.

Those guys were healthy the past 2-3 years when 3B offense was down as well. This is a trend and it's possible it may continue - and if it does then we can afford to lose a little offense at third to gain a lot of offense at first and add an elite starting pitcher.

I know Colletti threw huge contracts to Jason Schmidt, Juan Pierre, and Andruw Jones. He's also got the strong reputation of being a primarily scouting guy and not much into statistical analysis.

That's exactly what I'm basing this plan on - the completely inept offensive production at third this year and really for the past 2-3 years.

The Rays have the 15th highest 3B OPS in the majors right now, at .704. There are two teams posting a 3B OPS above .800 - the Cubs (.861) and Red Sox (.822). There are 11 teams with a .600-.699 3B OPS and four teams with a .500-.599 3B OPS. Third base OPS is way, way down this year and if it stays that way, it really wouldn't be very hard to have an above average or better OPS there. Especially when you consider that Baker is almost a lock to give us an .850-900 OPS as one part of the platoon. A slow start would definitely be a concern and Flaherty is the portion of the platoon I'm concerned about. However, if you call him up and give him plenty of ABs this year (play him full time at second if you want), that learning curve may be lessened next year. Whether the Cubs do that or not is another question. I'll also admit I'm going off the assumption that Flaherty hits righties better than lefties. If he doesn't have a strong platoon split, then we might need to look elsewhere for a Baker platoon partner. Don't get me wrong, I love Aramis and the production he's given us over the course of his career. However, assuming no real increase in payroll, we'll have to skimp somewhere in our upgrades. Pena's a nice player, but I feel it's vital that we add either Fielder or Pujols this offseason. That leaves enough money for either Aramis or a top of the rotation starter like CJ Wilson. Between the two, I feel like we can fill third base with above average production cheaply next year while we don't have a top of the rotation starter in our in-house options.

It largely depends on how well Flaherty can hit righties in the majors. I can't find his minor league platoon splits, but the Baker portion of the platoon would almost certainly be close to as productive as Aramis against lefties. Aramis career OPS v lefties: .874 Aramis career OPS v righties: .831 Baker career OPS v lefties: .900 Can Flaherty give us an .800+ OPS against righties next year? That's probably pushing it, but I think that platoon has a chance to be pretty good in comparison to most third base options around the league - it'd be a downgrade, but it would allow us to make two rather large upgrades at first and in the rotation.

As hard as it is to be in favor of letting Aramis walk, I still think they can replace him internally much more easily and effectively than they can fill 1st base or the top of the rotation internally. As good as Aramis has been, I really think Fielder/Pujols and Wilson are more important to the Cubs' chances of winning next year than Aramis is, because we can replace him with a Baker/Flaherty platoon and probably still be above average at third. Of course, if Ricketts ups payroll and we can afford all three, I'm all for bringing back Aramis.

Even if he doesn't end up in a platoon at third, he carries some value as a bench/platoon bat. Considering he's not all that expensive, I don't see a problem keeping him on whether we bring Aramis back or not.

I doubt we'll be able to fill the position before the end of the season simply because I tend to think we won't be able to interview any candidates during the season. In order to interview anybody, we'd have to get permission from the current team and most of the names we've heard bandied about are with organizations that will be in contention the rest of the year (Red Sox, Rays, Yankees, Braves - the White Sox being the only exception). I asked the question a page ago whether we might be able to start some interviews in-season, but even if we can I doubt contending teams would grant permission until after the season. My guess is this drags on around a couple weeks after the World Series, Ricketts will knock out the remaining interviews then and we'll have somebody in place a little before free agency begins.

It wouldn't equal Aramis' numbers, but I'd call up Ryan Flaherty to be the left handed portion of the platoon. My preference would be to keep Aramis, obviously, but we've got around $40 million to spend this offseason and have major needs for a top of the rotation starting pitcher and a middle of the order bat. That $40 million does not include picking up Aramis' option for next year. So, we're left with the scenario of adding two of the following three players (theoretically): Fielder/Pujols, Aramis, CJ Wilson. By keeping Baker and promoting Flaherty, we have a pretty decent chance to have above average production at third base and then we make major improvements at first and in the rotation.

SLG: 2011: .495 Career: .536 OBP: 2011: .371 Career: .364 UZR has him as a very good fielder at second and inconsistent at third. I'll concede this one to you. He's got enough power and patience in a platoon role, however. All numbers are against lefties.

Baker has a career OPS over .900 against lefties. He could be very valuable to the Cubs as the right handed side of a third base platoon next season. There's plenty of reason for him to be on the team.

It's not that he needs to prove himself, but if he can't handle the starter's workload, then he's a burden on the pitching staff at the MLB level. At Iowa you can skip him, push him back, piggy back him, etc. as much as the organization would like. They can piggyback him at the ML level with Shark/Russell, if it truly comes to that. It has more of an impact at the major league level to have a guy starting who you have to coddle. In Iowa, nobody cares if Cashner can only pitch 3-5 innings in a given start because it doesn't matter if Iowa wins or loses. At the major league level, however, the goal is to win and that goal would be hampered by starting a guy you know may only be able to go 3-4 innings some starts because of a pitch count limit. As for piggybacking him with Shark or Russell, we've seen enough of Russell this year to know he's not very productive if he's in any more than a short reliever type role. He's not a guy we need to be throwing for multiple innings. As for Shark, he was a bad pitcher when he was being moved from the rotation to the pen throughout the season, so putting him right back into that role is risky at best. He probably needs to focus simply on either starting or relieving and not both, and it seems his stuff is best when he's in a relief role, so that's where I'd leave him.

I'd tend to favor starting Cashner in the AAA rotation next year and then maybe shifting him to the major league pen once Iowa's season is over. He stays stretched out and gets a decent amount of innings without putting undue stress on his arm by trying to insert him straight into the ML rotation all year.

Any chance organizations grant permission to interview assistant GMs during the season? I doubt it, meaning all Ricketts could do until the offseason is just narrow the list and gather all the information he can on all these candidates (which I hope he's been doing to this point). There's a chance teams not in the playoff hunt would grant that permission, though.

Good article by Fangraphs on potential replacements for Hendry. The list includes Kim Ng, Rick Hahn, Texas' Thad Levine, and Atlanta's John Coppolella - who seems to match everything Ricketts is looking for in a new GM.

This interview he did with MLB Trade Rumors really makes me think Cherington is going to be at the top of Ricketts' list, and perhaps the inevitable future GM of the Cubs:

Good move by Ricketts. I wasn't exactly calling for Hendry's head, but I do think going in a different direction is in the organization's best interests. As others have said, however, I hate it for Hendry as he seems to be a terrific guy. In looking at potential replacements, it strikes me that a guy like Ben Cherington seems to be the obvious choice. I'm definitely not saying he'll get the job, but all signs seem to point to him. Neither Hahn nor Logan White (a UK favorite) fit both of Ricketts' criteria laid out at the press conference - I wouldn't call the White Sox or Dodgers perennially winning organizations of late. Cherington, however, does - he works for an organization that stresses analytical evaluation and no franchise out there has won as much recently as the Red Sox. Ricketts has also made it well known that he wants to model the Cubs after the Red Sox, and what better way to do that than to bring in one of Theo's top guys. Friedman and Cashman would also fit Ricketts' criteria, but I still consider both of them pipedreams. My favorites for the job (after Friedman and Cashman) would probably be Hahn and White, though Cherington might jump up there too once I know more about him.

An important note to mention is that none of the players you mentioned here are in any way comparable to Pujols and Fielder. Pujols is one of the greatest hitters in the history of the game and is far superior to anybody you mentioned, while Fielder will be 28 for his next contract and has been as productive or moreso than any other player on this list. Pujols and Fielder also have the patient approach that everybody on that list, save Dunn, lacks. I can't really think of any player on the FA market recently that quite compares to Pujols and Fielder, which is why citing big contracts that have failed for players like Wells and Soriano is completely irrelevant.

I'm confused by this line of thinking. How is cutting a player with a guaranteed contract considered disciplining him? He's getting $18 million next year whether the Cubs cut him or keep him. I can fully understand disciplining him - suspending him for the rest of this season without pay makes sense in that regard - but how is cutting him discipline?

Ah, I was misunderstanding your argument. I would prefer they bring him back, but I fully understand the suspension and get the reasoning behind cutting him. I just don't think simply cutting him is a good decision.

Technically, arguing the merits of anything on a message board is a waste of time. Doesn't stop all of us from doing that, though. And from your comments I took it that you were arguing in favor of getting rid of Z and I was questioning that reasoning.

This is exactly the reason why we should keep Z at this point. His value is probably right around 0 at this point, so the trade won't be made to make the team/organization better. It's a bad idea to give away an average starter with no real compensation in return, get no salary relief for him, and then try to fill his spot with options who likely will be worse than he is. Suspend him for the rest of the year if you want, but don't cut him - it's a bad business decision. I'd be perfectly fine with voiding Z's deal or watching him retire (though neither is going to happen) so that we could free up $18 million and go get 1-2 players who will be better in the clubhouse and on the field. However, since that's almost certainly not going to happen, it's a better decision for the Cubs to discipline Z this year, keep him around for next year and hope he pitches well enough to either help us win or trade him at the deadline (if we're out of it). The Cubs may well have decided he has to go no matter what, but that doesn't make it a good decision. And my original response was to you saying: "If you're continually insubordinate to management, if you're on probation and violate it, you'll be canned, at Hardees or wherever." The reason companies do this is because it's in the best interest of the organization to do it. However, in most of those companies, the employer can fire the employee with cause and not have to continue to pay the employee for not working. In the Cubs' case, however, cutting Z wouldn't be a disciplinary action because it's not discipline to tell a guy you're going to pay him for not working. Especially when Z can then turn around and make even more money than what the Cubs are paying him by signing a small deal with someone else. It's not in the best interest of the Cubs to cut Z, so it doesn't make sense to do it.

But should the Cubs only hurt themselves by outright releasing Z or trading him without any real compensation? If they cut Z, they have to eat the entire $18 million and Z gets his entire paycheck. You're not hurting Z in any way by cutting him - on the contrary, you're giving him the opportunity to make even more money by cashing his check from the Cubs and going out to look for more work. In cutting Z, the only party that's hurt is the Cubs because they have no extra payroll space but have a new hole in the rotation to be filled. The only smart business decision for the Cubs at this point is to keep Z and let him pitch, unless they can find a way out of a decent portion of his contract.

It's possible that the entire Ricketts family is involved in discussions to either fire Hendry or hire Gillick/team president and it was Tom who decided to take a personal tour of the farm systems to get an up close look of how things are being run there. He then could be reporting back to the family and they use that report in their discussions on whether or not to make whatever change they're considering. The key to the report is "within" 10 days, so it could be anytime within that time frame - it doesn't have to be a full 10 days if they make this hypothetical decision sooner.