Hairyducked Idiot

A year from now, will we see Valbuena as a more important and brilliant pickup than Rizzo? Why do you say such awful, awful things? I made it a question to give plausible deniability.

A year from now, will we see Valbuena as a more important and brilliant pickup than Rizzo?

YES! My slow computer stopped me from getting here in time to call that, but I totally called it in my head.

I have absolute faith that we will win this game. I am not prepared to live in a world where this team can't handle that Marlins team.

OK, so we're 6-14. This team is obviously not going to be a .300 team all season. With Baker, Garza and Stewart still rehabbing, we're a tiny bit worse than projected at the beginning of the year, so let's say we're a true-talent 75 win team. If we play like that for the next 80 games, that'd put us at 43-57 through 100 games, which takes us into the final week before the deadline and is roughly the center of the fire sale (assuming we don't wait until July 31 for every single trade). So the big question projecting the rest of the way is how bad will we be after the deadline? Last year, we managed an epic 18-42 (.300) after the trade deadline, but that's probably unsustainably bad. How bad we are after this deadline depends a lot on how willing we are to trade guys with more than one year left on their contract and to give not-ready AAAers some MLB playing time. Just as a WAG, I'd guess we are a .400 team for those final 62 games. That'd be 25-37, for a final projected record of 68-94. If we want to credibly threaten 100 losses, we'll need a few more things to go wrong than already have or can be reasonably expected.

I don't know if this will make you feel better or worse, but he didn't really swing at the second one and got rung up on an absurd check-swing call. But the other two, yeah.

OK, just so we're clear. I am completely denouncing the idea that he might start at XST. Bringing up Soler and Baez wasn't defending the idea, just showing why I had it in the first place.

It wasn't meant to be a direct, one-to-one comparison. It's just that this front office seems to like to give new prospects a couple of extra weeks' indoctrination in The Cubs Way before letting them loose in the minors. Didn't Baez start there too, or am I imagining things? Maybe it's crazybuckets, though. It doesn't matter. The main point was that even if they are capable of pitching in the majors immediately in 2014, I doubt this front office is going to do that for a couple of reasons.

Really? It seems to me like they start almost everyone there. High school or rehab guys, yes. Pierce Johnson is in Kane County. I was thinking more along the lines of Soler. But the main point is I really don't see them starting the draft pick in the majors right away in 2014. They're going to want to control his workload, and they seem to like to move guys slowly. I'd put the over/under at like 80 MLB innings for the pick.

Really? It seems to me like they start almost everyone there.

And I expect a similar improvement for 2014, which would put us around an 80-win projection. But even that's going to take a lot of work. We're going to need to replace Garza, Feldman, Marmol, Camp and whoever we trade at the deadline this year just to get back to where we were going into this season, and then find improvements on top of that. We'll get some improvement from the infield developing, but the outfield should be aging just as fast. Unless payroll gets cut again, the money should be there to replace all those guys and add one Jackson-sized piece, very similar to last offseason. The actual availability of players is going to be a much bigger challenge than finding the money for them. It's just a brutal, brutal free agency class coming up, and lots of other teams will have money to spend too. All that should set the stage for 2015 to be the "fliip the switch" year they've talked about. There's a really good chance that'll be the first full year in the majors for at least one of our elite position prospects and probably the 2013 No. 2 pick (I'm guessing either Gray or Appel will get a very brief minor league taste at the end of this year, then start 2014 in XST before getting in a partial pro season with an innings limit and a big-league exposure at the end of the season). Taking a 76-win-projected team into the upper-80s in one offseason with very little in the way of graduating prospects (Arodys Vizcaino is about the only guy in line for 2014 that really impresses me) just seem like way too tall of an order. They're going to need to do it in two steps.

PECOTA likes to tweak its projections all through spring, but I'm pretty sure they were at 72 wins for the 2012 Cubs most of the year, and 76 for the 2013 Cubs.

I dunno. We're at the sweet spot right now where it's kind of funny. It'll get tedious in a month or so.

Sure, we can't know exactly what things will look like after the deadline. But for 2014, the best-case scenario is that it doesn't get any worse and we only trade guys on expiring contracts. We're not getting back pieces that move the needle in 2014 for guys like Feldman or Marmol. Sure, we might be able to get something for 2014 for Garza, but that just locks in the problem of replacing Garza, which is a bigger problem than anything you're likely to solve by trading him. The possibilities for how the upcoming trading deadline affects 2014 are hard to pin down right now, but the scale seems to be from "no change" to "a decent amount worse."

And really, when we project the 2013 rotation, we need to include the near-ready pitching prospect we're getting from the Garza trade, right? :wink: It's baseball. All we can do is project from what we have. Of course it's going to be somewhat futile. We can make all the careful projectioning we want, but then Jeff Samardzija turns into an ace, Marlon Byrd can't hit, Sammy Sosa hits 60 home runs, Corey Patterson washes out, Starlin Castro goes from interesting A-ball guy to .300 MLB hitter seemingly overnight, etc., whatever. If the 2012 roster was better than the one they inherited, it was by a very slim margin (and really it's only true because the roster they inherited literally had no players at several key positions). The 2013 roster *might* be a win or two better than the beginning 2012 roster, but you could easily call it a wash. I expect they'll do something very similar for 2014. They'll make it worse at the trade deadline this year. Then they'll need to replace or re-sign (or pick up the options) on Garza, DeJesus and even Marmol. By the time they've done all that, they've eaten up most of their budget and have enough money leftover for one more marginal upgrade, something like Ellsbury over DeJesus. Then we'll project to win 79 games going into the season instead of 77 this year or 76 the year before, and I'll say something in the spring like "if you squint, it can be .500ish and maybe we'll get enough positive variance to be in the race." Yeah, we don't know the exact particulars. If I were doing this exercise last year, I might assume we'll pick up Maholm's option and resigned Dempster. Instead we traded them and signed Villanueva and Feldman. Same difference. The proponents of the front office's plan are right: It's incredibly hard to make significant gains in a single offseason without graduating impact prospects. and that's not something we're really getting until 2015. I thought 2011-12 was a unique exception because the free agent class was awesome, synergized well with our needs, and we all assumed/hoped we'd have $135-150m to play with. This year's offseason free agent class is brutal, our budget really does appear to be squeezed tight, and what is available doesn't really seem to fit our needs all that well. I can't see it happening.

I think so. On paper, the team this year shouldn't be nearly as bad as it has been. I think it's an acquisition or two from being decent, especially if we retain Garza, which I think is increasingly likely. With a good offseason, I could see the Cubs being a wild card contender next year. See, I think completely the opposite. We have no impact prospects coming up next year. Logan Watkins looks like a utility player to me, Brett Jackson is still striking out 30% of the time at AAA, and counting on Junior Lake for anything is just spinning the roulette wheel. *Maybe* you can get some quality innings out of Vizcaino by that point? That's about it. So the path from a 75-win team to a contender is going to have to come from an incredibly sparse FA class and a very crowded trade market. It'd have to be something like: Re-sign Garza Trade for Price Sign Ellsbury to replace DeJesus Find another above-average bat in a trade that you can fit somewhere into the lineup (i.e. not SS or 1b) Build an entire bullpen essentially from scratch plus maybe Fujikawa if he turns out to be good after all. All that together probably takes you to an upper-80s win projection. That's an A+ offseason that requires them to make some major commitments without knowing for certain that all the pieces will come through, and many of the pieces are long-shots. It'd be much more consistent and seems much more likely to me that they'll simply say "We've waited this long, the impact prospects are coming up next year, let's replace Garza, make an Edwin Jackson-style signing and fill out the rest of the roster with bargains."

I don't see the point of refusing to spend money because the team isn't ready for it, then later paying double for a single player like Price (in talent and then a contract extension) when the team is in just as bad a shape. Nor do I find it to be a likely scenario. I have no doubt that they'll be willing to deal prospects in the general sense. I have a ton of doubt that they'll be doing it as a push to make the 2014 team competitive.

Exactly this. We can go back and re-debate the post-2011 offseason every day from here to eternity (no, seriously, we could. I'd love that. It would be fun), but it's too late now. Going into last season, the team really was awful. Revenue problems really do seem to be squeezing payroll. The free agent classes no longer suit our needs particularly well. Mineaswell stay the course. This is especially why I think the people who are hoping for them to flip the switch and make a Price trade or some other sort of major upheaval for 2014 are fooling themselves. The timing doesn't look remotely right. Iowa is a ghost town if you are looking for impact prospects right now, and AA is barely any better. I see some guys who could be backups or fringy starters if all goes well, but I don't see anyone coming up before the end of 2014 that makes me think "OK, yeah, that guy could definitely be an upgrade over what we have at that position." If we don't trade anybody and we pick up DeJesus' option, here's what we have for 2014: Soriano/DeJesus/Schierholtz Valbuena or Stewart/Castro/Barney/Rizzo Castillo Samardzija/Jackson/Wood/Villanueva/Vizcaino Everyone in the bullpen minus Camp and Marmol. You know what that looks like? That looks to me like the exact same 2013 team that is on pace to win 45 and projected to win 75 pre-fire sale, except with a thinner pitching staff. You need to replace or re-sign Garza just to *get* to a 75-win projection, and that's not going to be an easy thing to do in an offseason that is incredibly pitching-thin. And replace anyone you trade this deadline, Maholm-style. Let's assume that we don't trade anyone who isn't on an expiring contract, *and* that we sign Garza or a Garza-equivalent for $12-15m. Now you're somewhere in the $80 million range committed and you're maybe looking at a 75-win team if you are feeling generous about the pen. Probably even worse. Has this front office given even the slightest indication that they'd go out and try to find the 10-15 marginal wins in the offseason that it would take to make that team a real contender? Are they really going to wait until Baez, Soler, etc. are a year or less away and then suddenly say "screw it, let's trade prospects for a big-name player and make it rain in free agency"? Is there even going to be enough offense available in the upcoming offseason to make that 10-15 win improvement, even if they wanted to? More than likely, we'll get a Garza replacement or Garza extension. We'll get an outfielder to replace the one we trade at the deadline this year, Soriano or DeJesus. We'll get a mid-tier bullpen arm to replace Marmol and Camp. We'll go into camp projected to win like 78 games, and the front office will give us the same "aww, shucks, if we happen to get hot and be in it great, but we're not afraid to firesale rather than win 78 games" routine that we got this year. And honestly, that's probably the best course. It's one thing to go hard after Prince Fielder or Albert Pujols or Yu Darvish when you have a glaring organizational need at those positions. Once Cano is signed to an extension by the Yankees, there's nothing remotely on that level available. And I don't think they are willing or able to make the half-dozen high-quality non-elite moves that it would take to get the team into fringe contention without an impact addition. I'll be glad to explain every day until 2020 why this was a bad plan, but it's the only plan we've got now.

Random tour of guys I've been thinking about. Jumping on and off bandwagons with SSS abandon. Brett Jackson still has a 30.6% K-rate through 49 PAs. It's not like we need to cut him or anything, but I'm done expecting or even hoping for any MLB contribution there. Logan Watkins still has an insanely awesome walk rate, but that's pretty much all he has offensively. He's got a 7.7 LD% and a perfectly ordinary .297 BABIP, so I'm guessing he's going to drop from his .789 OPS, and a .789 OPS in the PCL isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for his future. I guess I could still see him being a fringy useful player at the big leagues, but I'm back off that bandwagon. Honestly, Iowa is just a big ball of blech right now. Still can't bring myself to care that much about Szczur. He's almost 24 and he does everything at AA basically OK but not great. Is that really putting him on a path to be an MLB starter? Like everyone else, I'll be really excited about Alcantara is it turns out his power numbers are remotely sustainable. Javy, Javy, Javy. The BABIP is up to .283 despite a 10.7 LD%. So that excuse is out the window, and still just a .708 OPS. Since being promoted to Daytona last year, including AFL, he's 229 competitive PAs, striking out 59 times (25.8%) and walking 9 (3.9%). He's got a .321 OBP in the minors, and that's not including the AFL stint. The power, defense and raw potential are still incredibly exciting, but the flaws are legitimately scary. I'm starting to see a lot more Jose Hernandez in his future than Gary Sheffield. I'm going to have to put Soler ahead of Baez. I'm sure our draft pick this year will be ahead of him. And Vogelbach and Almora are both knocking on the door. I could possibly see Baez being our No. 5 prospect by the end of the season. I love how little problem Vogelbach is having with Midwest League pitching. The power should come, and even he can't be slow enough so that an 17:1 1b:2b ratio is sustainable, so it seems to me like the basis is there for a monster year.

Do I think Ricketts' tenure has been a mistake-fueled tragedy? Absolutely. But worst in Cubs' history? That's just silly. Ricketts may be an exciting prospect in the realm of bad ownership, but the Cubs have had some HOF-level terrible owners that aren't going to be surpassed that easily.

It wasn't a bullet, but it was definitely a line drive. Would have been a hit in a lot of directions, but it was mostly right at the right fielder.

Seems like an odd sentiment for 2014 considering the incredible starts from the new regulars(Castillo, Schierholtz, Villanueva, Wood). Honestly, with one frustrating (or irrelevant, depending on your point of view) exception, I really liked what they did with the last offseason. It just wasn't nearly enough because of the hole they dug the year before.

Well, it's almost always a good idea to spend more than minimal assets for bullpen spots. But the more important point that you missed is that the problem wasn't the asset allocation, it was the actual decisions they made. They should have gotten much more out of the bench and bullpen last year even with minimal investment. Not wanting to invest isn't an excuse for having that many below-replacement players on the bench, or having a dead-last bullpen that costs the team 7-8 wins against average according to WPA. A good front office should be able to outperform that without expending assets. So the question is, why didn't we do better? I've generally seen two responses to that question. The first is "Who cares, the team was so bad that it didn't matter." I hate this argument (Yes, MR, I know you don't care) for two good reasons. First, it inevitably leads us to debating the post-2011 Cubs for about the eight millionth time. Second, this is a front office that tries very hard to put forth the image that they won't be outworked on the little things. They brag about having hours-long meetings about which foot to hit the bag with. They speak lovingly of scouring the waiver wire every day. They give each prospect a book outlining how they are expected to do everything about being a baseball player. So when little things go badly, having to hear "Well, this front office can't be expected to care about that, it's too little" is pretty tilt-inducing. It's bordering on the exact sort of trolling argument that I'm frequently accused of employing. The other would-be explanation is that we had so much terrible fodder on the back half of the roster because they didn't inherit enough, which is almost a worse argument than the previous ones. Unlike many posters afaict, I actually remember 2011. The argument was consistently made at the time that while we lacked impact talent, we were crawling with interesting, young, cheap guys who could fill the back half of a roster. The front office traded some of it, left some of it unprotected in the Rule 5 draft. Some of it improved and got promoted to more important roles, some of it got worse and ended up stuck in AAA for long periods of time. But in aggregate, that back-half cheap talent *was* in place when they took over. Epstein is even on the record calling some of those moves mistakes. So would it really be *that* hard to put aside the reflexive defense of all things Theo and say "Well, I think the stuff they are doing right will be more important in the long run, but they definitely have screwed that up?"

The fact that the horrible, awful player that Epstein willingly employed was only partially an infielder is a dumb mistake on my part, but it doesn't undercut the more important point, which is that Epstein's front office chose to employ such a terrible player. It's Epstein's fault that the team didn't have a good 3b already in place, along with a decent bullpen and some other parts, so that the games in September were being used for that purpose rather than to try to advance to the playoffs.

It's a balancing mechanism, a nerf from the universe. Otherwise, I would be severely OP in these discussions.