Bertz

Good contact, good D, hits lefties well...he's what Almora is supposed to be basically. Certainly not a guy you pencil in as a starter (though young enough it could still happen), but the OF is inevitably gonna have a bunch of platoons/timeshares in 2020 and he complements the current group well.

I do expect that we see some activity earlier this year. I think the broad strokes of the offseason is likely to be: 1. Trade Willson for pitching 2. Use FA and/or small trades to complement the primary group of position players 3. Possible additional pitching moves Because these tracks are largely independent, and because we are not shopping at the top of the market. I see no reason to not expect activity before or during the winter meetings. On the flipside Contreras might not be traded for *just* pitching (e.g. Manuel Margot), so it could still muk things up. Also, if a KB trade is legitimately being explored, that DEFINITELY holds everything else up.

The team has probably ~7 spots they can use to protect guys, so the decision on Mekkes will be tight. Based on this article from Arizona Phil a couple weeks ago, and subsequent decisions on Q, Graveman, and Webster, I believe we're at 31 spots filled right now https://www.thecubreporter.com/10062019/projected-cubs-post-2019-world-series-roster Russell's a safe bet to go, which brings us to 30. I'd imagine the team adds 3 net new guys to the roster over the offseason (1 pitcher and 2 position players). There's likely to be more than that, but anything additional would have an offsetting move off the roster. That means 7 guys get protected: - Amaya is a 100% lock - Rea and Miller seem very likely, I'd say ~90% - Johnny Pereda seems likely to take the Taylor Davis emergency catcher role. PJ Higgins has a shot as a more offensive minded alternative - Zack Short and Trent Giambrone both seem unlikely but not ridiculously so - Mekkes, Minch, and Swarmer are the reliever options under consideration, I imagine in that order - They may also want to leave a spot open to play the roster crunch game, like with Ian Clarkin last winter So with all that said, I'd guess they keep him, but it's probably ~60/40. There may also only be 6 spots to play with. I do not expect both Mills and Chatwood to make it to ST. If the plan is to keep both, that's one fewer spot to play with. However, we could also add a spot by dumping Almora. Speaking of Almora, I would keep him. It seems given the market that we're not ultimately going to bring in a slam dunk everyday guy for CF. We're likely going to head into the season with Happ and TBD fighting for the role, with Heyward and Nico as depth options. Given that, I think we want to have as many rolls of the dice as possible, and having Almora hanging out at Iowa would be prudent. The Iowa outfield is a travesty anyway so it's not like he's blocking anyone. Unless his ~2m is really the difference in making another move there's no reason not to keep him and hope that putting him on the Ian Happ plan can't get him back to at least being a useful bench guy.

Goldstein is not just some red shirt who's famous on baseball internet, he's the director of pro scouting

A week ago I assumed their punishment was gonna be in the neighborhood of the Cards' hacking scandal. A few days ago I wondered if we might see similar to the Braves' IFA scandal. Now? I wonder if that might be the floor.

Really good article on taking a more proactive and scientific approach to player rest in the Athletic: https://theathletic.com/1372051/2019/11/15/sarris-could-we-see-more-load-management-in-baseball-what-the-sport-might-learn-from-the-nba/ Guessing that, in addition to their obvious failures the last 2-3 years, this is why the medical staff was just turned over.

That former high ranking MLB executive is definitely just Ralph

Xander Bogaerts is probably the closest comp, and he got 6/120 last winter. That being said he was a year younger, a little better, and a year closer to FA, so maybe more like 6/100?

Mooney with an article of actual substance, that's a fun change of pace. I like the Akiyama fit a lot. A lot of the negative stuff about his defense has mentioned how much it has declined rather than saying it's outright bad. So maybe it's a Lorenzo Cain situation where he's gone from incredible to merely pretty good?

I feel comfortable calling the pitching fixed. We haven't seen a guy go all the way from A-Z in the org yet, and that will be nice to see, but we've seen numerous guys successfully make different parts of the journey. The draft picks and IFA signings from the last few years are all moving at comfortable clips, and like I showed a few posts upwe've reached the point with 3-4 of them at AAA to start the 2020 season. I would argue given Arrieta, Hendricks, and Carl, that finishing guys who were in the upper minors was never a problem (I'm less adamant about this than the broader point however). But if that part of the process was broken as well, I think Ryan, Wick, and Wieck show that they can now finish guys as well, even if they have seemingly stalled out. Wieck in particular they turned around in like 2-3 weeks. There's probably an argument with Mills too, but he's been in the org so long that even with the numerous injuries I don't want to hold him up as evidence of anything. They can move guys through the minors now, and successfully graduate guys from AAA to MLB. I'd be very skeptical that those two skills are independent or mutually exclusive.

Show me where I did this. Nowhere did I say that the team was anything less than bad at pitching for the first ~half of McLeod's tenure. I've been consistent in three things both today and when this same argument came up in the minors forum over the summer: 1. The vast majority of resources were poured into bats. An average FO probably gets another 2-3 relievers and 1-2 SPs out of the resources they did allocate. That's a failure, but that's roughly the magnitude of failure we're talking about 2. Being as amazing as he was at drafting bats FAR outweighed how bad he was at pitching. McLeod's comparative advantage at bats led to far more surplus value than the "2-3 relievers and 1-2 SPs" his comparative disadvantage at pitchers cost. There's the core from the last few years, plus Soler, Gleyber, Eloy, Candelario, Paredes (a top 100 guy now), Bote. Caratini was acquired as an A-baller for James Russell, they get at least half credit on him. Nico, Davis, and Amaya are likely consensus top 100 guys currently. Seriously, McLeod's essentially averaged two Top 100 caliber guys per year, one foreign and one domestic, through his entire Cubs tenure. That is an INSANE rate of hits, and miles above what you'd consider the benchmark or expected value 3. Regardless of whether you agree on the first two points, the pitching problems were fixed literally years ago. The pitching improvement is not just speculative or on the upswing but it is good right now: I know you don't follow this stuff that closely but every rotation there except Eugene has at least three very legitimate prospects (and Eugene is meant to be staffed ~50% by college draftees anyway).

I like this, one of the top 10-15 free agents signed basically the moment that "real" FA opened up for basically exactly what he was worth. More of this please.

That's a little bit of an oversimplification, looking at Happ's draft. Yes, for where the Cubs were at the time it made sense to prioritize a more polished bat. But in those 6 you have Brendan Rogers and Kyle Tucker, both of which are much more valuable than Ian Happ. Happ and Schwarber are valuable players; I take issue with them being tossed out like they're proof that it's ludicrous to expect this FO to have someone running the farm who could, apparently inexplicably, both have an eye for offensive talent and could just barely competently handle the pitching development side of things. Like, "how dare you want to see someone other than the mastermind that found Schwarber and Ian Happ" is a tad much. I think the crux of this discussion is that you are arguing despite giving no indication that you understand what a draft on balance *should* net you. A draft that nets a team an everyday player or mid-rotation starter and one bench/pen guy is a solid success. That'll earn you a B grade. That is how hard this stuff is. I assume the Astros are a team you have in mind when you think the team ought to have done better? Go look at their 2013 draft. The best player they got out of that draft was Tony Kemp, and that's a draft where they had the #1 overall pick. This stuff is HARD. McLeod's worst drafts are either 2012 (Almora, Bote, Underwood) or 2015 (Happ and a few guys who still might be relievers). This org has problems. Lots of them. Amateur talent acquisition is like third from the bottom after Javy Baez and Yu Darvish's twitter account.

Let's say you're right (you're not, you're grossly exaggerating things, but w/e), is that worth catapulting him out of town? Yes. Not developing a single pitcher of any real worth is really, really bad, and a massively critical aspect of running a damn farm system. To shrug that off like it's NBD is pretty damn funny, and to say, right now, that the "pitching ship has been mostly righted" is even funnier. So the options were only McLeod or someone worse? Well, gee, when you put it like that.... In net terms, the Cubs have had fantastic contributions from the farm the last 8 years. So yeah, the choice is basically would you have rather had McLeod or someone worse. Unless you think we could have stolen whoever ran drafts/IFAs for the Dodgers or one of the 2-3 teams who had a better run than us without it being a pure matter of draft position. Overall, on the pitching, TT really hit the nail on the head that the lack of investment is the primary driver there. In the first 3-4 years of McLeod's tenure, they invested real assets into 6 guys: Duane Underwood, Paul Blackburn. Pierce Johnson, Dylan Cease, Justin Steele, and Carson Sands. Those were the guys who were either a day one pick or got paid like one. They hit on Cease, and between Underwood and Steele will probably net another 7th inning guy. Going 1.5/6 sucks, but it's not some affront to pitching development. On the later rounds, we should acknowledge Zack Godley as a success, but yes you'd also expect an additional Kyle Ryan type or three by now. Canning McLeod because of two missing Kyle Ryans and not getting a mid-rotation starter out of the Underwood/Johnson/Blackburn trio is horsefeathering moronic. His track record with bats is INCREDIBLE, and dumping him because of some histrionic "where's the pitching" tantrum is the very definition of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. And even if this argument wasn't dumb, the fact is that the problem has largely been resolved over the last 3-4 years. Ironically, the two high picks in 2017 look to be busts, but they've kind of been killing it in the middle and late rounds. The pitching in the system is very healthy, to the point that every level has 3-4 real prospects in the rotation and a few guys in each pen who you don't have to squint too hard to see as major leaguers. It's not the Padres or the Braves, but considering the assets expended to get there (as a playoff team we've been picking late in each round plus losing draft picks from FAs) it's not all that dissimilar.

I guess that's the FO business mantra: something has gotta be god awful for years before it can be good. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY. Seriously, it cannot be understated how catastrophically bad they botched developing pitchers (literally ANY pitcher) for years. Let's say you're right (you're not, you're grossly exaggerating things, but w/e), is that worth catapulting him out of town? Would you really rather have had a worse farm director if they had a better balance between hitting and pitching? Or is this some sort of "we should be the best at everything dammit" temper tantrum?

I'm okay with them making the change with McLeod, it's probably time, but the animosity towards him is real weird, and I've yet to hear anything intelligible behind it. It's always "BUT WHERE'S THE PITCHING" while ignoring a) the vast majority of resources were poured into bats b) McLeod's track record with bats is incredible and c) the pitching ship seems to have mostly been righted in ~2016 and we're beginning to see the results.

Just on those few details I'm calling that a sneakily badass hire. The A's don't get enough credit for how physically talented and toolsy their org is Yeah I know nothing about the guy but seeing early decade Cardinals and last couple years A's on his resume has me doing the Alonzo Mourning gif nod.

No, he's a little above average at framing (he was great ~5 years ago but I think the league has caught up to him). I like D'Arnaud more than Castro primarily because of contact ability, but both of them (as well as Yan Gomes) live in a similar space in terms of total overall value.

Okay let's try this one: - Contreras for Gray and Estevez - Bote and stuff (not a ton more I'd imagine) for Keone Kela and Adam Frazier - Chatwood for as much salary relief as possible (let's assume ~half) - Sign Shogo Akiyama 4/24 - Sign Chris Martin 2/12 - Sign Travis D'Arnaud 2/10 - Sign Wilmer Flores 1/4 - Sign Billy Hamilton 1/3 Lineup: Shogo/KB/Rizzo/Baez/Schwarber/Vic/Nico/Heyward Bench: Happ/Flores/D'Arnaud/Frazier/Hamilton SP: Darvish/Kyle/Q/Gray/Lester RP: Kimbrel/Kela/Martin/Estevez/Ryan/Wick/Iowa Shuttle/Mills I like this team a ton. On the position player side, The defense has gone back to being a strength, the contact ability has improved substantially, and the bench rocks. On the downside, the bottom of the order lacks pop except on days where Happ starts. The pitching staff is more exciting IMO. The rotation's a top 10 unit even with no improvement from Gray. The bullpen is completely reworked and is a huge strength now, with 4 or 5 guys I'd feel comfortable with closing games Salary wise, I have this right at 230. That means it works even if payroll is flat, but the intention is to have enough room to extend Javy.

I hadn't thought much about dealing Bote, but it makes a lot of sense. There are at least a dozen teams that can use a guy like him as a starter either at 2b or 3b, and given the contract there's some pretty real value there. The obvious question that raises though, is why consider dealing him given our gaping hole at 2b? I think this bit from Sharma's article gets at why: 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.

If that's true, it makes even more sense to trade a guy with 2 years of control left for one with 3, right?

Money mostly, Grandal will make almost as much in year one of his deal as Willson will over the next three. Also, if you think you can "one weird trick" Contreras into better framing you just basically traded for JT Realmuto. Especially nowadays there's value in what a guy could be as opposed to what he currently is.

While I agree that a Chatwood trade is fairly likely, I didn't include him because I think he's in a different category. The five I mentioned were all make "2020 worse to improve 2021 and beyond" type moves. Chatwood's on a 1 year deal that at best is right at his market value, so it'd be more of an "I have other ways I'd rather spend $13M" move. Reasonable and likely basically regardless of what the offseason plan is.

So if we're doing a whole "retool not rebuild" thing, what are the potential options? I see five...am I missing any? 1. Trade Willson 2. Trade Q 3. Trade Schwarber 4. Trade Heyward 5. Trade KB I think #1 is clearly the most attractive, as doing a whole Willson/Grandal swap is something that would be worth considering even with unlimited payroll. 2 & 3 don't move the needle that much, but turning those guys into long term assets and then backfilling with FAs fits the idea. #4 is by far the least likely, but I wonder if there might be something there. Heyward is owed 4/86, and is probably worth ~half of that? Could we trade him, concentrate the money eaten into 2020, and be mostly done with him in 2021 and beyond? Doubtful, but not totally outrageous. I know people hate #5, but the fact that it keeps coming up has got to mean something. He would clearly return the most in trade, his salary could be reinvested into a meaningful replacement, and there are a number of 3B options on the market at varying levels. If trading KB gets them something like Jo Adell via trade and Zack Wheeler via salary I understand why they would explore it.