Transmogrified Tiger

Hedges and Margot you're banking on them hitting better with a different org and getting out of Petco/NL West. I'm more bullish on Margot making that leap given his pedigree and age, but Hedges doesn't have to go far to make himself worthwhile given just how good he is defensively. They both complement existing players(Happ & the LH corner OFs, Caratini) well for platoon/timeshare/PH purposes too. That said, I'm not all that attached to Hedges so if it's not him and something else you find interesting, that's fine with me. Lamet has 2.7 fWAR in 35 MLB starts, the questions are if he can stay healthy, and if he can go a bit deeper in games. If either were answered he wouldn't be available, so you take the chance that one happens and you essentially have a new Quintana in value, a late bloomer SP with lots of team control providing ~3 wins/year. If both happen he's the new Arrieta, but it is possible that none of them do.

Braves are gonna have their roster set by Thanksgiving at this rate.

As a thought exercise, Contreras, Quintana, and a few million for Lamet, Margot, Hedges, and Munoz gets a substantial amount of shopping done for one deal. The Padres get more rotation certainty on top of a big catcher upgrade without giving up much 2019 productivity or financial flexibility to make further rotation upgrades. The Cubs could then get another live arm but question-mark SP(I mentioned Bote for Yonny Chirinos a few pages back) to go with a volume approach for the rotation(and pen), plus they'd have most all their powder dry to make a significant move elsewhere even though they've mostly covered the gaping holes at that point(2B would be the biggest question mark). You could even realistically consider if the trade cost were low enough to try and shake loose Betts or Lindor, since you've at least made some attempt to paper over the other concerns.

I think most folks can be encouraged by 2019 being better than 2017-18 in that regard, and also skeptical because 1) again, relievers are basically random number generators in their predictability so you can do well by accident to a certain level and 2) Mills and Wieck being on the list with a combined 19 relief appearances (26 IP) kinda makes the point that we're stretching for positives.

My read is that anyone who wants to say 'the consequences of not doing enough player development at the end of this core's time together are too great to not pay for it with their job' is not wrong, and also that anyone who wants to say 'player development is really difficult to do and to measure, and the comprehensive hitting success makes it even possible to have a core to spoil so I'm willing to stick with McLeod' is also not wrong.

But "not using high draft picks on pitchers means you're less likely to develop good pitchers" is just d'uh common sense. What people (rightly, IMO) take issue with is that in addition to making that choice, the Cubs then failed to develop even a single relief pitcher outside of Edwards via any prospects they drafted or signed. That's horrendously bad. And to try and spin that off via, "well, they won the WS while that was going on, plus other teams don't really develop THAT many pitchers," as a defense of McLeod is pretty weak, IMO. I really take issue with the idea that he's some essential asset where the idea of the Cubs kicking him to the curb is a ridiculous idea. I think this is where the starter/reliever distinction is important. They should've done better at being able to fill a bullpen from within, there's no excuse for it. It's also probably the best possible place on a roster to fail, because every reliever is a game of russian roulette from year to year and so things go unexpectedly well or terribly all the time. The SP I think they did okay given the circumstances they chose. I don't have particular attachment to McLeod personally, but I also think the 'if he's good then where are the pitchers?' is a bit too simplistic a criticism.

So are we saying this is a development that took them surprise? Like, we effectively have to be, because otherwise for them to act as they did is almost shockingly negligent. It also effectively means that we have to assume that the relative financial constraint from the Ricketts also took them by surprise, because otherwise for Theo Epstein, with his at least somewhat shaky track record of acquiring pitchers via signing and trade, to be plowing ahead with a "horsefeathers PITCHERS" approach in regards to player development while knowing all of that is....not good. I think they were pretty clear-eyed about that being the consequence of the strategy. To oversimplify, draft the hitters, pay for the pitchers while the hitters are cheap. They're hitting a crossroads now where the hitters are less cheap(and we've had 1-2 years of stalled development/regression) and the pitchers they started investing in aren't ready or are a bit behind an aggressive timeline. The missing piece in this is that the best teams have bridged this gap by getting better at developing talent already at the MLB level. The Cubs have done their share of this(Arrieta and Strop being the obvious answer, but guys like Valbuena, Coghlan, Hammel, even Fowler to an extent too), but they've recognized their failure in that regard with the organizational changes in the last 12 months.

As far as relievers go, I think they've been a bit below average for multiple reasons, but they should've been able to avoid needing so many deals with the Kintzlers, Brachs, and Duensings of the world with better development. Starters are a little different animal. If you look at the last few years, the correlation between starters who are above average, and especially those who are consistently above average, is really closely correlated to being a high draft pick and/or a high bonus arm. There's a shockingly low number of good IFA SP, and the diamonds in the draft rough are few and far in between. When you combine that with the Cubs intentionally not sinking money into draft SP until very recently, they intentionally didn't give themselves much chance to develop SP, but those with the ability they did a solid job with(Hendricks, Cease, and Godley being notable success stories, if not all with the MLB Cubs). I'm not willing to say they're *good* at it given that there isn't a legion of Top 100 arms hitting AA now that it's been long enough since they started investing, but there's enough circumstance to not see it as a failure of player development.

https://theathletic.com/1375584/2019/11/14/young-st-nick-castellanos-wont-be-stopping-on-the-north-side-but-keeping-kyle-schwarber-could-be-a-gift/?source=shared-article The thrust of the article: - The Cubs aren't likely to go with a Schwarber/Heyward/Castellanos outfield as a long term solution, mostly for defensive reasons - Heyward isn't tradeable - The Cubs see Schwarber as similar to Castellanos and believe in his 2nd half turnaround(it elaborates on Schwarber's mental adjustment) As a result, the conclusion is they're not likely to bring Castellanos back, and instead are focusing more on CF. It also mentions that the FO believes in Almora enough to tender him and not try to dump him for nothing, and also that it's unlikely that Happ enters the 2020 CF race without real competition.

[tweet] [/tweet] I posted a link earlier in the thread showing how much better the Astros were against sliders than everyone else the last 3 years. Guess who the only other team with a positive run value against sliders was?

If paying Bryant ~6 million a year more than is comfortable is what it takes, then I'm on board right away. I won't try to convince everyone it's the best decision in the world, but especially if you're mitigating risk by making it 8 years from today instead of Free Agency it's easy for me to talk myself into it. Only downside is the havoc that wreaks on this offseason from an LT perspective.

https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=0&type=7&season=2019&month=0&season1=2017&ind=0&team=0,ts&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&startdate=2017-01-01&enddate=2019-12-31&sort=3,d With sliders being thrown so hard now and the progression in pitch tunneling, knowing when one is coming is definitely a cheat code. The last 3 years the Astros are one of 2 teams that even have a positive value on sliders, and they are absolutely lapping the field with that positive value.

No setting up a system with cameras in your home park so you can instantly relay signs to a hitter is capital C cheating. I'm not even sure there's a huge benefit(lots of hitters have said they don't even want that information), but when you're systematically getting it in a way that isn't possible for the opponent to do so because it's your home park, it's cheating. Nah. It's dumb for catchers and pitchers to still communicate that way 20 [expletive] years deep into the 21st Century. At worst it's motivation for the game to update something that should have been updated god knows how many years ago. It's such a ridiculous blind spot it basically deserves to be exploited (and visiting teams can exploit pretty damn easily, too). Hit like to subscribe and get my follow up theory: A [expletive] pitch clock would pretty much fix all of this. It's the asymmetry that matters to me, I don't particularly care that they're trying to get signs. Steal all the signs you want, but if you're using your home park to do it in a way your opponent physically can't, that crosses the line for me.

No setting up a system with cameras in your home park so you can instantly relay signs to a hitter is capital C cheating. I'm not even sure there's a huge benefit(lots of hitters have said they don't even want that information), but when you're systematically getting it in a way that isn't possible for the opponent to do so because it's your home park, it's cheating.

To split this into pieces, I think you can do better(if not in value then in fit, but probably in value) for Contreras than Mejia/Urias/prospect reliever, and I definitely would not trade Alzolay, Chatwood, and Descalso for Myers.

I know Canha technically attempts to play some CF, but i’m not sure he’s an appreciably different player from Schwarber at this point. That isn’t bad but I don’t see what swapping them 1 for 1 accomplishes.

Bleach was maliciously poured onto my Cubs World Series hoodie and I had to toss it. I've been checking back regularly, but they only have it in small. I need L or XL. https://www.ebay.com/itm/EUC-Nike-Chicago-Cubs-2016-World-Series-Champs-Blue-Hoodie-Hooded-Sweatshirt-L/202819145763?hash=item2f38f69023:g:yeYAAOSwy21dyAHZ

I'm not a big clubhouse cancer person, but Kela has basically gotten multiple rosters to revolt against him. Relievers aren't *that* hard to come by and he's not *that* quality a reliever to be worth it, IMO.

Bote in a vacuum is probably a pretty solid everyday option at either 2b or 3b. Given though that the things he sucks most at are the things that half our lineup sucks at, it would be understandable if the team were reticent to hand him the keys to 2b. And if he's not going to get a chance to play everyday, replacing him on the bench with a guy who has a more leverage-able skillset helps win more games in the near term anyway. IMO he's more of a defensive stretch at 2B too. I'm fine with him being in a mix that has several options(Hoerner, Descalso, and Kemp from the current roster, for example), but it's tougher to just plant a flag on Bote the 2B.

The Rays are an interesting partner, although I would worry they're going to have too heavy a framing emphasis to be a Contreras destination. After reading Sharma's piece about why Contreras could be the big trade, the emphasis on extending the window past 2021 stuck with me, it made me think about how they could reasonably extend that window without compromising this year's goals. For example: - Schwarber to San Diego for Margot and Andres Munoz - Bote to Tampa for Yonny Chirinos - Contreras, Short, and Underwood to Colorado for Gray and Estevez - Sign Castellanos for LF. He's a 1:1 Schwarber replacement, and at more years of control. Since he's only 28 they are years of control worth having too. - Sign Asdrubal Cabrera to play 2B, or be the new Bote if Hoerner shows out. Cesar Hernandez works too. - Sign Jason Castro to timeshare with Caratini. Both are more than platoon players but less than outright first division starters, which is a nice luxury in terms of playing matchups and hedging against injury/ineffectiveness. Caratini/Castro, Rizzo, Cabrera/Hoerner, Baez, Bryant, Castellanos, Margot/Happ, Heyward Hendricks, Darvish, Q, Gray, Lester Kimbrel, Estevez, Wick, Ryan, Chirinos, Chatwood, two of Wieck, Munoz, Mills, Rea, Alzolay, Mekkes, NRI

Padres and Braves step right up, please....Who else do I not hate for Contreras...the Indians if Theo can get Lindor *and* Kluber...uuuum...the Mets...His contract situation might even make the Rays do something they normally wouldn't do...Rockies have a great park for him and some players...the Angels could give up Adell for a top win now player with a great contract situation... I think my ideal Willy outcome this offseason is him (throw in a Short, Giambrone, Underwood, Abbott, etc type or two if needed) for Jon Gray and Carlos Estevez then sign Grandal. If you can pull off Gray and Estevez for Contreras and no other MLB/top prospect assets, you have a lot of flexibility to imprvoe without needing 17 trades. Grandal + Shogo, Castro + Castellanos, etc

Not at all. It's not proof positive he's going to be a star, but their lack of misses at the top of drafts when drafting college hitters is a validation of their ability to get MLB caliber players from that cohort. I guess I'm not sure what type of value you're assigning to Hoerner, but if we're comparing him to Ian Happ and Kyle Schwarber, both of whom were top 10 picks and in theory more valuable/better players, that's not exactly a ringing endorsement. And yes, I know, Kris Bryant, but he was in no way a reach. Basically I think people keep ignoring the Albert Almora sized elephant in the room when they look at Hoerner's (admittedly limited) numbers. I think Hoerner can be a poor mans version of a poor mans Zobrist, but I haven't really seen anything beyond that. Happ and Schwarber have combined for about 14 fWAR in just under 3000 PAs, that rate of production is more than fine with me as an outcome for Hoerner. Yes, there are some parallels to Almora, but 1) those are going to happen with any high contact player who isn't an Altuve-level talent, and that's where leaning on Hoerner's ability to adapt from being a high level college player plus ever-improving organizational instruction can give room for optimism.

If you need a reason to believe, he is a college bat that this front office drafted in the first round even when that wasn't his consensus value. Not sure if this is supposed to be sarcastic. Not at all. It's not proof positive he's going to be a star, but their lack of misses at the top of drafts when drafting college hitters is a validation of their ability to get MLB caliber players from that cohort.

If you need a reason to believe, he is a college bat that this front office drafted in the first round even when that wasn't his consensus value.