I want to talk about roster construction in general.

CSF77

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
17,960
Liked Posts:
2,775
Location:
San Diego
Montgomery is best as a spot starter/swing man and is more valuable out of the pen. Mills and Underwood are prospects who the Cubs clearly feel aren't ready, if they are even major league talent to begin with. Smyly wasn't "supposed" to be anything other than an injury flyer and he's thrown 3 innings in three years. None of these guys are viable options going into a season for a WS-contending team. Signing Hamels was the correct move.

I agree with this. Mills and Underwood are examples of a team that is poor at self development of pitching. Any org with a history of self development would hold onto AAAA talent like this as they are grinding out better quite.
 

fatbeard

Well-known member
Joined:
Dec 25, 2013
Posts:
13,173
Liked Posts:
12,172
Like I said bench to send a message to him. Playing time = production.

Org do bench for lack of production. Cubs have been pay = play. Which is wrong.

On Chatwood. If they DFA most teams will pass. He most likely accepts then you have him start in AAA. If he fixes his flaws then you have something to work with over the duration of his deal.

Right now he is still making the same mistakes in a new role.

Again this is core issues with this team. They are passive and investment over rides common sense.

This is a silly and demonstrably false argument. Starlin Castro lost his spot despite a 7/60mil contract and was eventually benched and traded. Chatwood was demoted to the bullpen after failing to perform after half a season despite 3/38mil. Schwarber was sent down to the minors after struggling for half a season, and he had the excuse of coming off a major injury. Happ began the season in the minors because he wasn't producing. Miguel Montero was outright released for production, his comments about Arrieta were just the straw that broke the camel's back. Hell, they even fired Bosio after he became a distraction, and he was an outstanding coach. The Cubs punish guys who don't produce, and sometimes guys who do, too, when they deserve it.

On Heyward, he was a league-average player last year, but you're talking about him like he's Chris Davis. You have simply lost perspective on this. Jason Heyward is not baseball AIDS. Cutting off your nose to spite your face is dumb. Benching overpaid players only to throw in AAAA replacements and hurt your own team is dumb. It's the catharsis for a frustrated fan after a bad start to the season, grasping for answers. You bench a guy when you have a better option available, and the Cubs don't right now.
 

chibears55

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 18, 2013
Posts:
13,554
Liked Posts:
1,924
Montgomery is best as a spot starter/swing man and is more valuable out of the pen. Mills and Underwood are prospects who the Cubs clearly feel aren't ready, if they are even major league talent to begin with. Smyly wasn't "supposed" to be anything other than an injury flyer and he's thrown 3 innings in three years. None of these guys are viable options going into a season for a WS-contending team. Signing Hamels was the correct move.
Not really
 

beckdawg

Well-known member
Joined:
Oct 31, 2012
Posts:
11,723
Liked Posts:
3,723
Signing Hamels was the correct move.
I'd say probably on this. I think you could potentially make the case that paying him $20 mil to be your 5th starter wasn't the best move but there's not a lot of compelling alternatives IMO. I think you'd have to argue that rather than give him that money you come how come away with 2 better relievers. For example, if you knew for certain you could have got Adam Ottavino(2 years $9 mil per) and like.... idk Andrew Miller?(2 years $11.5/12) maybe you'd be better off with hoping one of Chatwood/Monty/whomever didn't look terrible as the 5th starter.

Then again, if the cubs had another $20 mil who's to say they spend it on relievers? I mean if they had another $20 mil maybe they go harder after Harper which given the way the early season has played out looks like a mistake given the offense looks pretty good without him.
 

CSF77

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
17,960
Liked Posts:
2,775
Location:
San Diego
This is a silly and demonstrably false argument. Starlin Castro lost his spot despite a 7/60mil contract and was eventually benched and traded. Chatwood was demoted to the bullpen after failing to perform after half a season despite 3/38mil. Schwarber was sent down to the minors after struggling for half a season, and he had the excuse of coming off a major injury. Happ began the season in the minors because he wasn't producing. Miguel Montero was outright released for production, his comments about Arrieta were just the straw that broke the camel's back. Hell, they even fired Bosio after he became a distraction, and he was an outstanding coach. The Cubs punish guys who don't produce, and sometimes guys who do, too, when they deserve it.

On Heyward, he was a league-average player last year, but you're talking about him like he's Chris Davis. You have simply lost perspective on this. Jason Heyward is not baseball AIDS. Cutting off your nose to spite your face is dumb. Benching overpaid players only to throw in AAAA replacements and hurt your own team is dumb. It's the catharsis for a frustrated fan after a bad start to the season, grasping for answers. You bench a guy when you have a better option available, and the Cubs don't right now.

Starlin was inherated goods. They signed for control fucked with his mechanics then tossed him away for a garbage return. They really never shat on their own like that. Even Soler was not dumped on to that degree. He was always injured and forced their hand.

Theo has a type cast of talent that they prefer. OBA/SLG. Castro was hit from his shoe laces with avg at best D. He was old world school where BA was valued.

I though that he did his best batting #5 where those hits turned into runs.

Baez is of the same mold except power and better D. He forced a mindset change.

So you really can't take 1 guy in a bubble like that. He wasn't even their choice. Signing was for cheap control. That was it then they fucked with his mechanics to make him into what they liked. And trainwrecked his career.

Swear you are a homer sometimes and not even honest.
 

fatbeard

Well-known member
Joined:
Dec 25, 2013
Posts:
13,173
Liked Posts:
12,172
So you really can't take 1 guy in a bubble like that. He wasn't even their choice. Signing was for cheap control. That was it then they fucked with his mechanics to make him into what they liked. And trainwrecked his career.

I'm not taking one guy in a bubble, I provided you six different examples of the Cubs holding people accountable, including the current regime's own draft picks, signings, and coaching hires. You ignored five of them.
 

CSF77

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
17,960
Liked Posts:
2,775
Location:
San Diego
I'm not taking one guy in a bubble, I provided you six different examples of the Cubs holding people accountable, including the current regime's own draft picks, signings, and coaching hires. You ignored five of them.

Chatwood happened after they signed Hamels. They had depth to do this. But the fact they chose Montgomery over him was correct but that was based off of 2 guys with years of MLB experience and that is equal footing.

Montero was released for voicing discontent. Not the same thing.

Schwarber and Happ are under team control with options. Not really the same thing.

Bosio was him vs Lester. Bosio was axed for it.

Heyward is really not a strong arguement for you right now. I wouldn't tred on ice
 

CSF77

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
17,960
Liked Posts:
2,775
Location:
San Diego
Anyways

I said this on the other thread. I would lean on wRC+ as my Bible right now if I'm Joe.

CF is the problem. I would platoon both Almora and Heyward there. Add in the other to hold late inning leads

But they have to construct the team to build a lead then hold that lead. It really is that simple. If Bote and Zag are raking you have to play them.
 

CSF77

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
17,960
Liked Posts:
2,775
Location:
San Diego
Post on this:

CHICAGO CUBS (1–5)
Trying to find a positive on the Cubs right now is about as easy as holding leads is for their bullpen. I’ll give it a shot, though. Well, for starters, Willson Contreras, Anthony Rizzo and Kyle Schwarber are all hitting well after down 2018 seasons. The bench has been productive when called upon. So there you go. It’s not all bad on the North Side.

In reality this is as brutal a start as Chicago could’ve imagined. The pitching has been stomped on, giving up 46 runs in six games. The defense has made nine errors already. And the bullpen … the less said about that, the better. Cubs relievers have combined for an 8.86 ERA in 21 1/3 innings, including 19 walks and three blown saves.

It’s abundantly clear that the relief corps needs help, as it’s not deep and runs out of reliable arms quickly. That was the case before the season, too, but Chicago’s ownership decided the best course of action was doing nothing instead of using its limitless financial resources to fix the problem. Signing the still-available Craig Kimbrel would be a start, as would getting back the injured Brandon Morrow, but the Cubs need more than those two right now.

Right now, the lineup is doing all the work in Chicago, but that won’t be enough. The bullpen can’t be this bad forever, and Yu Darvish could rebound (as well as Cole Hamels and Kyle Hendricks, both of whom were hit hard in their first starts). But that’s a shaky proposition. The Cubs don’t need to panic just yet, but they do need to figure out how to supplement a ragged pitching staff, and soon.


About as honest as it gets a D it covers how ownership chose to do nothing.
 

chibears55

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 18, 2013
Posts:
13,554
Liked Posts:
1,924
I'd say probably on this. I think you could potentially make the case that paying him $20 mil to be your 5th starter wasn't the best move but there's not a lot of compelling alternatives IMO. I think you'd have to argue that rather than give him that money you come how come away with 2 better relievers. For example, if you knew for certain you could have got Adam Ottavino(2 years $9 mil per) and like.... idk Andrew Miller?(2 years $11.5/12) maybe you'd be better off with hoping one of Chatwood/Monty/whomever didn't look terrible as the 5th starter.

Then again, if the cubs had another $20 mil who's to say they spend it on relievers? I mean if they had another $20 mil maybe they go harder after Harper which given the way the early season has played out looks like a mistake given the offense looks pretty good without him.

Exactly...

When they gave Hamels the 20 mil I took it as they were going to pretty much spend and go up to or over the high tax threshold and go for it all now over waiting til money came off the books.
Whether it was on relievers, and or Harper, or Machado.

But giving him the 20 mil and then crying broke and staying as is over upgrading the bullpen or offense sounds like an amateur move or plans changed afterwards...

Could of gotten a much cheaper option from somewhere for a 5th starter and used that money to upgrade elsewhere
 

dabears584

Bears Fan For Life TT&T
Joined:
Nov 4, 2012
Posts:
1,304
Liked Posts:
343
Location:
Fort Eustis, Virginia
They already won a World Series and it doesn’t look like they care enough to win a second. That or they feel stuck where they are and unsure of themselves on how to get the team back to the World Series. It looks like it’s going downhill rather quickly. How do teams have sustained success, go to the playoffs every year and win multiple championships? How have the Yankees, Red Sox and Giants done so over the past twenty years? Whatever that formula is they need to figure it out quickly before this team completely crumbles away and is no longer any resemblance of the team that won the World Series in 2016.
 

fatbeard

Well-known member
Joined:
Dec 25, 2013
Posts:
13,173
Liked Posts:
12,172
They already won a World Series and it doesn’t look like they care enough to win a second. That or they feel stuck where they are and unsure of themselves on how to get the team back to the World Series. It looks like it’s going downhill rather quickly. How do teams have sustained success, go to the playoffs every year and win multiple championships? How have the Yankees, Red Sox and Giants done so over the past twenty years? Whatever that formula is they need to figure it out quickly before this team completely crumbles away and is no longer any resemblance of the team that won the World Series in 2016.

Everyone knows the formula, it's not some great mystery: Get to the playoffs and hope you get hot. That's it. And remember that even as the best team in the league, small sample size variance is going to beat you 80% of the time.
 

85Bears

Formerly known as 85Bears
Donator
Joined:
Sep 26, 2012
Posts:
1,797
Liked Posts:
970
Location:
Enemy territory...
Hitting talent wise the Cubs have that. It is built to be feast of famine due to their higher strike out rates.

It does seem that way, but they're ranked 21 out of 30 teams so far this year for strike outs (team with most SOs is ranked 1st). Last year, they were 13/30.
 

CSF77

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
17,960
Liked Posts:
2,775
Location:
San Diego
It does seem that way, but they're ranked 21 out of 30 teams so far this year for strike outs (team with most SOs is ranked 1st). Last year, they were 13/30.

Early results are good with hitting coach. He had a history with these hitters in the minors.
 

Rory Sparrow

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 14, 2010
Posts:
4,850
Liked Posts:
3,735
3) Everyone on this board was ecstatic when the Cubs signed Darvish. Now some disingenuous posters are claiming they knew he would fail before he got here, and Epstein should've as well. Get outta here with that revisionist BS. He's made one start after not playing baseball for nearly a year.

4) Gleyber Torres is not a superstar nor is Jimenez, and the fact you are claiming this just shows how dishonest you are and how badly you're trying to manufacture an axe to grind against Epstein.

This take has aged well.
 

Rory Sparrow

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 14, 2010
Posts:
4,850
Liked Posts:
3,735
Not really. If you get an everyday MLB player out of the pick you are satisfied. Keep in mind something like 40-50% of top 100 bats never become anything. Not to mention the fact that Almora likely has 3 win potential in him.

Almora WAR = 0.6

Good stuff.
 

anotheridiot

Well-known member
Joined:
Jul 15, 2016
Posts:
5,935
Liked Posts:
799
Almora WAR = 0.6

Good stuff.

OK, but look at the treatment. Works on hitting against Righties, is doing better against righties, actually better than against lefties, but he platoons against the lefty still.

Rizzo in a 2-32 slump, "HE HAS TO PLAY HIS WAY OUT OF IT".

Where is the difference?

but Almora has a strong game, next game he is on the bench.
Bote, walk off hits, home runs, grand slams, next game on the bench.

MaddOn rides the names, not the hot hands.

There are two options, change the roster, or change the way the roster is handled.

All Theo is doing is talking about getting more fire, we all know the only thing a hippie knows how to fire.

Change 1 or 25?
 

Rory Sparrow

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 14, 2010
Posts:
4,850
Liked Posts:
3,735
I agree. No one has distinguished themselves in the Cubs OF to warrant "special treatment", so by the same token, Almora hasn't been so terrible relative to his roster counterparts that he shouldn't be given regular opportunities. Especially this year, where Almora is getting into "make or break" of his career and the Cubs have no money to bring in other starting players (just players like Cargo, I guess).
 

Top