Transmogrified Tiger

I understand being worried about the Brewers. That pitching staff is damn good. Not saying the Cubs are necessarily better, but what is so special about the Cardinals? Offensively, I see home runs but their ability to get on base is garbage. On the mound, they have Flaherty, who when healthy is very good. Following him they have a 40-year old Wainwright, the inconsistent Matz, a mediocre Mikolas, and what else? Hudson could be good if he can stay healthy, but he's pitched a grand total of 10 games the past two seasons combined. I'm not seeing anything particularly great about them. Edit to add: Just realized this will be Hudson's first full season back from Tommy John surgery, so it's tough to know what to expect. On the pitching side of things, especially with their injury concerns I agree I don't see a great difference between them. Offensively, ZiPS projects them to have 3 guys with 4+ wins and 5 at 3+, that's a depth of high quality that we can't expect(though it's not impossible) from our position player group. There's room to be pessimistic about their guys, a couple are post-prime and a couple others don't have long track records of that caliber, but from a projection perspective it's still a sizable gap even if it's not impossible. Weirdly enough, the Brewers are the reverse where you can see that position player group being very underwhelming without needing to squint a ton, so they could be one unfortunate pitching injury from being dragged back to the mean. Overall, just from eyeballing ZiPS, It seems it's something like 79 wins for the Cubs, 84 for the Cards and 86-87 for the Brewers. That's a meaningful gap but also one that regularly turns out to be wrong(in one direction or another) as the realities of the season arrive.

One thing I will say is that this roster construction puts a lot on Ross to get things right. If he plays a favorite position player or two way more than performance/matchups dictate, or isn't clear eyed about the bullpen pecking order, then that's gonna bleed more wins compared to previous year's roster construction. But as it is this is set up to be a team that's greater than the sum of its parts thanks to its depth and the way it fits together.

ZiPS says around 80: https://blogs.fangraphs.com/jonathan-villar-joins-the-cubs-as-their-newest-jack-of-all-trades/

In this instance I'd hope he'd learn from what the Dodgers did with Betts and Turner and look to the near-FA trade market. Get a guy early enough that you still get compensation for him(IIRC draft comp for first time FA stays in modified form, just not the penalties if they institute the int'l draft) if an extension doesn't work out but you open a long window to get someone longer term without FA pressures.

Payroll in the Ricketts era pre-Theo was 3rd, 4th, and 6th. Incompetence is not tanking. c'mon that was grandfathered in, their total spend in the 10-11 offseason was less than $28M I don't see how that matters. If it does then the argument is the Ricketts were intentionally wanting the team to lose by supplying it with a Top 5 payroll and not firing the GM who had averaged 84 wins/season prior to them(including 97 the year before they bought the team) and won 83 in their first year. It makes the definition of 'tanking' so broad as to be meaningless.

I am still in awe at how quickly the Ricketts family has managed to alienate the fanbase. They buy the team from an old fashioned ownership group. They let the team tank for the first couple years, I'mma stop you right there. It was way more than a couple years of tanking. They bought the team in 2009, the Cubs lost 89 games in 2014. There have been 5 (if you are being generous) non-tanking seasons in a 12-year span of their ownership and they are deliberately entering their 13th season of ownership with three hands tied behind their back. Payroll in the Ricketts era pre-Theo was 3rd, 4th, and 6th. Incompetence is not tanking.

Yep, Bryant and Rizzo and Hendricks are not dripping in charisma or particularly expressive players, but they were/are favorites because they were really good for several years. If Hoerner or Madrigal or Suzuki or Davis or even Wisdom or Schwindel are really good, people will love them too. Also, even if you want them to overindex on personality, they just paid 20 million a year for Stroman!

The reaction here is putting a lot of blame on ownership and while I understand the sentiment I don't think that's the limitation. Right now I think the front office has done a good job with raising the floor of the team, and they need stars. Where do star players come from? Here's where the 5+ fWAR players from 2021 came from: Internal(acquired before reaching MLB): 17 MLB trade: 2 (O'Neill, Marte) Free Agency: 7 It is incredibly important to maximize your prospect assets, because the odds are overwhelming in your favor of growing a star over buying one. The Dodgers are first good because they continually get star performances from the farm and player development(Kershaw, Seager, Bellinger, Buehler, Urias, Turner, Muncy, Taylor, etc), then great because they spend on top of it(though as previously noted, almost never on QO FA). You might ask "why does this matter when a prime aged star is available in FA?" It matters because 1) Correa would require losing a high 2nd round pick(which the FO values around 20 million) and 2) he signed a contract that eliminates the upside of sacrificing that pick. If Correa is a star, then he opts out after one year(and will generate no pick compensation) for a team that isn't a Correa away from being a title contender. If he isn't a star, then you could've gotten his production in a cheaper and/or longer term package without punting an opportunity at growing a star. You might also ask "why not just give Correa his desired long term contract then?" and that's a fair question. That's what I expected to be the outcome for any team signing him, and while it is interesting that no one decided to do so(not the Dodgers who spent 160M on a 32 y/o 1B, not the Yankees who traded for Aldi-brand Andrelton Simmons, not Houston who wouldn't lose a pick for him) you can do that to get Correa's star upside for the next great Cubs team that makes it worth the pick loss. However, I don't see much indication that this is an ownership limitation. At every stop this offseason, there have been folks certain that the payroll wasn't going to go anywhere because of ownership stinginess. It happened when the payroll was below 100 million and then they signed Stroman. It happened after the lockout and then they signed Suzuki(who multiple reports have Ricketts personally invested in wooing) and 37 pitchers. While I agree some skepticism of spending is deserved, I don't see much reason to believe the team is hitting a payroll ceiling. It's an intentional decision by the front office to not chase a bunch of free agency spending(especially at super-long durations) because they believe that's not a good way to create a consistent winner, especially with the state of the roster to begin the offseason. That's not an infallible truth and there's room to disagree(in the last 5 years 10 teams have more wins than the Cubs, 4 big spenders, 4 small markets, and 2 in between), but if you do then that's an issue with Jed and the front office he built with a GM from Cleveland and a scouting director from Oakland/St. Louis.

Top of head guesses: - are ST road broadcasts a thing? I don’t remember - if yes, maybe Camelback specifically isn’t equipped for them - too short notice for various logistics/schedules post-lockout - spite

I don’t know much about the agreements players sign with their agents, but it seems possible to me that Correa could owe both past and current agents a percentage of this contract considering he didn’t change agents til the offseason had started. “You’ll get a better long term deal when you prove your health and keep more of it” feels like it could be persuasive.

I don’t really get why *no one* else managed to drive that offer higher. Are teams really spooked by the injury history? No interest in the possibility of a 1 year player(with multi year downside in case of disaster) given how random single seasons are? I typically roll my eyes at conspiratorial stuff like that agent theory, but Correa being fixated on a 1 year opt out being the thing that prolonged his market makes as much sense as his market’s behavior.

Is that impossible? No, but also I don’t see anything unique to the Cubs that they’ll be the final team standing. None of the other suitors(Houston, Yankees, Orioles) have made moves that make Correa less likely(certainly not any more than signing Simmons), so this theory rests on the assumption that the Cubs have had the best offer for months. Again, possible but not all that likely.

Of the 8 games with 4/5 seeds, 6 were yesterday, which means today is heavier on 1/2/3 seeds (higher chance of blowout) and therefore 6/7/8 (evenly matched power conference teams). Not a hard and fast rule(see Kentucky), but probably not a coincidence the Illinois game is the first interesting one.

Probably because the posting fee is due up front so it smooths the total Suzuki expenditure a bit.

You’re starting to wander from the generic homer schtick into Sulley territory here, and that’s not good for anybody.

My faith in Mooney having this down solid is not terribly high, but as context for the Baez section of this article, he says as Simmons is slated to be the everyday SS: https://theathletic.com/3193757/2022/03/18/why-did-ex-cubs-stars-get-their-big-contracts-elsewhere-and-how-did-those-extension-offers-stand-up-in-free-agency/ Between that, Sharma being a little coy about the possibility of another significant move post-Suzuki, the relative quiet on Correa this week, and payroll still being within previous norms with a Correa deal, I’m starting to wonder.

love the signing but now a little worried Jed has Dipoto disease

does Scally play on the left though? He’s done both for Gladbach

Norris and Brault make more sense now

I think most don't have much of a hope anymore, but does this effectively confirm we're out on Correa? Or not really a factor either way? You make room if you get Correa to sign, neither Simmons or Villar are long term or significant pieces you can tell them to get lost. Named After Maddux suggested on Twitter this might portend a Wisdom trade, but I can only see that if they did get Correa and probably not even then. At this point I’m not sure if I expect anything else of significance, the season starts in 22 days and they just aggressively filled out the roster over the last 48 hours. Doesnt mean there can’t be a Correa signing or a Hosmer trade or something like that, but I think these moves are representative of Jed’s optimism that something bigger is coming.

So from a roster perspective where are we Contreras Gomes Schwindel Madrigal Hoerner Simmons Wisdom Villar Suzuki Happ Frazier OF (Ortega? Heyward?) OF (Hermosillo? Ramirez?) Bote on 60 day IL Hendricks Stroman Miley Mills Brault Norris Steele Wick Robertson Martin Chavez Wieck Thompson (or other optionable RP) Heuer and Alzolay on 60 day IL

Also the Dodgers have done the relative austerity thing before, they slashed payroll to get under the tax for 2018, 2019, and 2020. We’ll have to see if they decide to do another one of those cycles again with the updated thresholds and penalties.

And Brault too

Moran is 1B/DH only and offers no present guarantee of production or potential for better in the future, might as well use Rivas for those PA. As far as Lowrie goes, I generally like him but that window is probably closed. Other teams will have more middle infield PA to offer and he's coming off a fractured wrist which doesn't bode well for him to regain his pre-pandemic form at the plate(a necessity if he's playing any 3B).

I think the charitable interpretation is they didn't want to upgrade Mills' roster spot with a guy(like Greinke) who isn't much of a bullpen fit when Mills ideally isn't even making the rotation out of ST. With Adbert's injury and Mills seemingly certain of starting a non-trivial number of games until summer, they can swap in Greinke, hopefully cheap enough to not damage any other pursuits, and then Mills can fight for long relief or they can risk waivers with him(and in April there's less chance of a claim).