MLB Playoffs

[buckchuckler]

Thing is, there are so many top level pitchers and hitters out there this off season in free agency that they can fill most of those spots without a trade. I think the only way they take a trade is if it balances their way

Well, through trade they can acquire someone controllable at a more reasonable rate.  The top tier starting pitchers are going to get a lot of money, as they always do.  They are paying Jon Lester 25 mil a year, are they really going to commit 50 mil or more to two starters?  Price, Zimmerman, Cueto will all command mid 20s at least, I'd guess.  They could probably sign a guy like Leake or Samardizja for mid to high teens.  Gray (just for the sake of an example)  is on par with the top guys and isn't a free agent until 2020. 

I know the Cubs have the money, but that's, well, Dodger/ Yankee money. 

Not to mention that giving long term high rate contracts to starters over 30 usually doesn't work out too well. 

[JWags85]

Two good young pitchers?
Kerry Wood was 26.
Mark Prior was 22.
Carlos Zambrano was 22.
Juan Cruz - the guy Cubs fans insisted was the next Pedro Martinez - was 24.
Heck, Matt Clement was only 28.

It's funny you now claim Patterson was seen as a "debatable" talent. You're either very young or very forgetful of the hype that surrounded that guy as a surefire five-tool superstar, a guy Baseball America once ranked the top prospect in all baseball. And let's not forget 24-year-old Hee-Seop Choi, the guy the Cubs dumped Mark Grace for.

A lot has been hashed out.  But by 2003, Juan Cruz was on his way out.  He was 2-7 in 2003 and on his way out the next year.  Zambrano was good but didn't break out till the next year.  Nowhere near the level of Degrom or Thor.  Borderline Matz at the time.  And are we really talking about Clement?  He was no better than Hammels or Hendricks.

As for Patterson, I remember the hype, he was one of the biggest prospect disappointments of the 2000s.  But he was only decent in 2002, 2003 was better but cut short by injury.  He never had the major league production of some of the guys people are excited about now.  His buzz was hopeful potential, Bryant, Schwarber, and Russell have come up and played really well.  His talent wasn't debatable, the future outlook was, IMO.

I think people have far more optimism in the track record of Theo and Hoyer compared to Hendry and Co.

[NavinRJohnson]

Thing is, there are so many top level pitchers and hitters out there this off season in free agency that they can fill most of those spots without a trade. I think the only way they take a trade is if it balances their way

Oh there's no question a guy or two is gonna be traded (Soler, Baez, Castro...). The roster still needs work to be more complete. Doesn't have to necessarily be only about pitching. They need to figure out who's going to play CF, which goes to the defense, bench, etc. Pitching is clearly a priority, but there's a few other teaks that need to be made as well. guess my point is Schwarber probably should not be considered untouchable. If he was truly going to be the catcher, then yes, you hang onto him no matter what. I don't see that happening, so moving him in the right deal, could make your team better.

[jsglow]

You have a strange sense of humor considering it's true.  The Cubs are no longer irrelevant and will be very good for the foreseeable future.  The past doesn't matter.  And aside from one postseason when they got hot, let's not act like the White Sox have a long history of success either.   

The White Sox are largely irrelevant in Chicago - they can't even draw fans when they have a decent team.  Not to mention they've been worse than the Cubs the past three years on the field as well, which is saying something considering how awful the Cubs have been until this year.   

I don't have any problem with Sox fans rooting against the Cubs - it's completely natural.  But those Sox fans who seem to care more about the Cubs losing than their own team winning, and there are a lot of them, deserve a little crap for it.   

But don't you think it goes both ways?  I recall lots of fans not wanting the Sox to win the Series.  The reality for Chicago baseball is that both teams have been mediocre or worse throughout most of baseball history, especially for the size of the city.  I'd argue that the Cubs bear much greater responsibility for that given their inherent economic advantages associated with WGN nationwide TV.  The standard for the Cubs all these years should be the Atlanta Braves who have had their share of success.  Frankly, that's what makes the Kansas City resurgence so attractive.  I always cheer for the small market teams, including my Brewers, and appreciate when the stars can align for them for relatively short windows of time given the economic inequality inherent in MLB.   

[MU82]

A lot has been hashed out.  But by 2003, Juan Cruz was on his way out.  He was 2-7 in 2003 and on his way out the next year.  Zambrano was good but didn't break out till the next year.  Nowhere near the level of Degrom or Thor.  Borderline Matz at the time.  And are we really talking about Clement?  He was no better than Hammels or Hendricks.

As for Patterson, I remember the hype, he was one of the biggest prospect disappointments of the 2000s.  But he was only decent in 2002, 2003 was better but cut short by injury.  He never had the major league production of some of the guys people are excited about now.  His buzz was hopeful potential, Bryant, Schwarber, and Russell have come up and played really well.  His talent wasn't debatable, the future outlook was, IMO.

I think people have far more optimism in the track record of Theo and Hoyer compared to Hendry and Co.

After the Cubs acquired Maddux, SI put them on the cover and declared them favorites to win the 2004 World Series. They had the incredible young pitchers who now would be tutored by Maddux. They would be a juggernaut to be dealt with for years.

Hell, the hype was so great that many were debating if the Cubs hadn't assembled not only the greatest pitching staff in years but the greatest stable of "hitting pitchers" -- in other words, pitchers who could help themselves with the bat -- of all time.

Like many here, I was in Chicago then. And the hype about the whole team -- especially the pitching -- was off the charts.

While the 2003 playoff collapse was spectacular in its suddenness, the 2004 final-week collapse was also remarkable.

As for Patterson, what a lot of folks forget is that he probably was the team's MVP the first half of 2003, keeping the team around .500 before the pitching fueled the amazing second-half run. He was batting .298 with 13 HR, 55 RBI and 16 SB before he blew out his knee just before the All-Star break. He was finally living up to his potential. He followed with a decent 2004 season but then gradually faded away.

[JWags85]

But don't you think it goes both ways?  I recall lots of fans not wanting the Sox to win the Series.  The reality for Chicago baseball is that both teams have been mediocre or worse throughout most of baseball history, especially for the size of the city.  I'd argue that the Cubs bear much greater responsibility for that given their inherent economic advantages associated with WGN nationwide TV.  The standard for the Cubs all these years should be the Atlanta Braves who have had their share of success.  Frankly, that's what makes the Kansas City resurgence so attractive.  I always cheer for the small market teams, including my Brewers, and appreciate when the stars can align for them for relatively short windows of time given the economic inequality inherent in MLB.

I don't think its to the same extent.  I rooted for the Sox in the 2005 WS.  I was happy for the city of Chicago.  I also hadn't lived in the city of Chicago to that point.  I moved here a few years later, and experienced the vitriol and don't know if I would now have the same cheering loyalties.  Ive had multiple people that are Sox fans find out I was a Cubs fan from Milwaukee and sneer that I clearly don't know much about baseball.  Its just weird.

I went to a Sox game in, i want to say, 2010.  They were still in the thick of the divisional race and they won a close, exciting game against the Tigers.  As we're leaving the ballpark, a pretty loud and uniform chant of "F*&# the Cubs, F*&# the Cubs" echoed through the concourse.  I was taken aback and just confused.  The Cubs SUCKED at the time and had no bearing on them.  It was just weird.  I don't think Cubs fans are all pious and happily root for the team down South, but you'd never hear something like that at Wrigley.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

On Inside Pitch (an MLB radio show) they were discussing the Cubs offseason, and brought up trading Schwarber.  Their logic was that he is basically a DH, and Bryant's future is likely in the OF.  So they were saying the Cubs could play Baez at 3b, Russell at SS, Castro at 1B, move Bryant to LF, find a CF (Eddy Martinez??? Really shady how they signed him btw), and keep Soler in RF. 

I know the Cub fans are probably protesting, but the trade they were hypothetically discussing was Schwarber for Sonny Gray.  What would you all think about that?

To me that still seems like enough offense, especially since all your best prospects are hitters, and a front 3 of Arrieta, Gray and Lester would be pretty dang strong. 

If I were Theo, I'd probably take that.

I assume you meant Castro at 2B in your comments because Rizzo isn't going anywhere. 

While I don't think anyone can ever truly be considered untouchable, I do think Rizzo, Bryant, Russell, and Schwarber (even in spite of his current defensive limitations, which can be improved) aren't going anywhere.  Soler, Baez, and Castro would all be more likely to be moved, IMO.  Of course, they should still have around a top five minor league system so if they wanted to acquire a cost-controlled young pitcher via trade they would have the assets to do so without disrupting the major league roster. 

I do agree that I think they could be hesitant to sign another free agent pitcher to a huge contract one year after doing so with Lester and that a trade might be more likely.     

[Pakuni]

After the Cubs acquired Maddux, SI put them on the cover and declared them favorites to win the 2004 World Series. They had the incredible young pitchers who now would be tutored by Maddux. They would be a juggernaut to be dealt with for years.

Yep.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

It's a mistake to think progress is inevitable for a young hitter with potential. Fact is, Kris Bryant and Addison Russell may be as good as they're ever going to be.
As a Cubs fan, you out of all people ought to know this.
See: Jerome Walton
See: Starlin Castro
See: Mel Hall
See: Geovany Soto

Yes, the risk of injury is greater with a pitcher. Said risk is much greater when your manager allows them to tack up ridiculous pitch counts (Hi, Dusty!). But starting pitching is so much more valuable than any other part of the game - and much harder to replace. I'm still wholly convinced 10 out of 10 MLB GMs would take the Mets' rotation over the Cubs' lineup. I mean, did the last five days teach us nothing?

I don't believe the players you mentioned above have the same pedigree as Bryant, Russell or Schwarber.  And in spite of some bumps, Castro has been a productive player over his career.  We'll see if all three of those guys along with Soler peaked this year but I feel pretty comfortable that they haven't.   

Yes, the last five days taught us that the Mets were better those five days.  The playoffs are a crapshoot.  And I wholly disagree with you that 10 out of 10 GMs would take the pitchers over the hitters. 

[Vander Blue Man Group]

But don't you think it goes both ways?  I recall lots of fans not wanting the Sox to win the Series.  The reality for Chicago baseball is that both teams have been mediocre or worse throughout most of baseball history, especially for the size of the city.  I'd argue that the Cubs bear much greater responsibility for that given their inherent economic advantages associated with WGN nationwide TV.  The standard for the Cubs all these years should be the Atlanta Braves who have had their share of success.  Frankly, that's what makes the Kansas City resurgence so attractive.  I always cheer for the small market teams, including my Brewers, and appreciate when the stars can align for them for relatively short windows of time given the economic inequality inherent in MLB.

I absolutely wanted the Astros to beat the White Sox in 2005.  What I wouldn't have done is posted on a message board or rubbed it in Sox fan's faces, including a couple of misguided friends that root for the Sox, if the Astros had won.     

The Cubs have been managed terribly.  The state of the entire organization when this new front office took over was abysmal.  People can talk about the past futility all the want but it has absolutely no bearing on where the organization is now and where it is going. 

[brandx]

I assume you meant Castro at 2B in your comments because Rizzo isn't going anywhere. 

While I don't think anyone can ever truly be considered untouchable, I do think Rizzo, Bryant, Russell, and Schwarber (even in spite of his current defensive limitations, which can be improved) aren't going anywhere.  Soler, Baez, and Castro would all be more likely to be moved, IMO.  Of course, they should still have around a top five minor league system so if they wanted to acquire a cost-controlled young pitcher via trade they would have the assets to do so without disrupting the major league roster. 

I do agree that I think they could be hesitant to sign another free agent pitcher to a huge contract one year after doing so with Lester and that a trade might be more likely.     

You may be right, but I don't see any way that they trade Soler. I think he is the breakout player for the Cubs next year. He's a guy that only had about 550 ABs in the minors and so he's learning on the job. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see a .280+ season next year with 25 HR.

I do think they would deal Castro or Baez for decent starter and there are options available in free agency.

[wadesworld]

I don't believe the players you mentioned above have the same pedigree as Bryant, Russell or Schwarber.  And in spite of some bumps, Castro has been a productive player over his career.  We'll see if all three of those guys along with Soler peaked this year but I feel pretty comfortable that they haven't.   

Yes, the last five days taught us that the Mets were better those five days.  The playoffs are a crapshoot.  And I wholly disagree with you that 10 out of 10 GMs would take the pitchers over the hitters.

You can take the "those five days" out of it.  The Mets are a better team.  Period.  And it's really not even close.  Outside of the Wild Card game, the Playoffs really aren't a crapshoot.  In a best of 7 series, the better team almost always wins.

Since Doug Melvin is no longer the Brewers GM, I do feel pretty confident in saying 10/10 GMs would take the Mets' pitching staff over the Cubs' lineup.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

I went to a Sox game in, i want to say, 2010.  They were still in the thick of the divisional race and they won a close, exciting game against the Tigers.  As we're leaving the ballpark, a pretty loud and uniform chant of "F*&# the Cubs, F*&# the Cubs" echoed through the concourse.  I was taken aback and just confused.  The Cubs SUCKED at the time and had no bearing on them.  It was just weird.  I don't think Cubs fans are all pious and happily root for the team down South, but you'd never hear something like that at Wrigley.

The paragraph above is a perfect example of what I was referencing earlier.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

You may be right, but I don't see any way that they trade Soler. I think he is the breakout player for the Cubs next year. He's a guy that only had about 550 ABs in the minors and so he's learning on the job. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see a .280+ season next year with 25 HR.

I do think they would deal Castro or Baez for decent starter and there are options available in free agency.

Agree 100% on Soler.  I just think the other four I mentioned are even less likely to go.  Either Baez or Castro would be the most likely and they will only be traded if they get what the feel is appropriate value. 

[Vander Blue Man Group]

You can take the "those five days" out of it.  The Mets are a better team.  Period.  And it's really not even close.  Outside of the Wild Card game, the Playoffs really aren't a crapshoot.  In a best of 7 series, the better team almost always wins.

Since Doug Melvin is no longer the Brewers GM, I do feel pretty confident in saying 10/10 GMs would take the Mets' pitching staff over the Cubs' lineup.

Well if you think the playoffs aren't a crapshoot once you get there you know even less about baseball than I assumed. 

You can feel confident about what the GMs would say but you shouldn't.  Here is a recent article that asked that exact question of scouts, GMs, and other front office personnel prior to the series.  9 took the Cubs hitters and 5 took the Mets pitchers.   

http://nypost.com/2015/10/16/mets-or-cubs-future-mlb-execs-torn-over-nls-young-studs/

[buckchuckler]

Well if you think the playoffs aren't a crapshoot once you get there you know even less about baseball than I assumed. 

You can feel confident about what the GMs would say but you shouldn't.  Here is a recent article that asked that exact question of scouts, GMs, and other front office personnel prior to the series.  9 took the Cubs hitters and 5 took the Mets pitchers.   

http://nypost.com/2015/10/16/mets-or-cubs-future-mlb-execs-torn-over-nls-young-studs/

I wonder if the results would be different now. 

[JWags85]

You may be right, but I don't see any way that they trade Soler. I think he is the breakout player for the Cubs next year. He's a guy that only had about 550 ABs in the minors and so he's learning on the job. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see a .280+ season next year with 25 HR.

I do think they would deal Castro or Baez for decent starter and there are options available in free agency.

I'm with you.  I love Soler's potential.  He's raw and still figuring it out.  But he's built in that Cespedes and Puig mold.  He's only 23.  His outfield assist in the clinching game over the Cardinals showed his potential defensively.

[buckchuckler]

A lot has been hashed out.  But by 2003, Juan Cruz was on his way out.  He was 2-7 in 2003 and on his way out the next year.  Zambrano was good but didn't break out till the next year.  Nowhere near the level of Degrom or Thor.  Borderline Matz at the time.  And are we really talking about Clement?  He was no better than Hammels or Hendricks.

As for Patterson, I remember the hype, he was one of the biggest prospect disappointments of the 2000s.  But he was only decent in 2002, 2003 was better but cut short by injury.  He never had the major league production of some of the guys people are excited about now.  His buzz was hopeful potential, Bryant, Schwarber, and Russell have come up and played really well.  His talent wasn't debatable, the future outlook was, IMO.

I think people have far more optimism in the track record of Theo and Hoyer compared to Hendry and Co.

Were you a Cub fan in 2003?  There was astronomical hype on that team.  Zambrano was super hyped, and in his third season (second full season), unlike Syndergaard who was in his what, third month?

Hendry came to the Cubs from a scouting background.  There was tons of optimism about their farm system.  Not only Patterson, Hee Soep Choi was the next great slugger, and I think Felix Pie got more hype than Bryant.  There were others as well.  Lots and lots of others.   

Oh, and Clement was way better than Hendricks or Hammel.  And for some reason I remember him being fantastic in those playoffs.  I could be wrong, but that's how I remember it.   

[buckchuckler]

I'm with you.  I love Soler's potential.  He's raw and still figuring it out.  But he's built in that Cespedes and Puig mold.  He's only 23.  His outfield assist in the clinching game over the Cardinals showed his potential defensively.

Throws are not a measure of defensive potential.  Assists are a very small part of most outfielders games.  As a Sox fan, the two best OF arms they've had recently were Viciedo and Carlos Quentin.  Great arms, terrible defenders. 

[Vander Blue Man Group]

I wonder if the results would be different now.

Certainly possible but I would question someone who let one series completely alter their philosophy. 

Both sides have great arguments and I wouldn't say that someone who would go with the Mets' pitchers is wrong, even if I would disagree.  However, I would say that being 100% sure that 10 out of 10 GMs would take the pitchers is ludicrous, which is my point. 

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Throws are not a measure of defensive potential.  Assists are a very small part of most outfielders games.  As a Sox fan, the two best OF arms they've had recently were Viciedo and Carlos Quentin.  Great arms, terrible defenders.

Soler was poor defensively this year.  His routes left a lot to be desired.  Metrics showed during the season Schwarber was slightly below average, although his performance in the NLCS made him appear much worse.  Both are young and have limited experience so while neither will ever be plus defenders I think they can improve so they aren't liabilities.  And it makes it more important to have a great defensive CF. 

[GGGG]

The Cubs have made it pretty clear from the get-go that they were going to draft mostly young bats and develop a pitching staff through a combination of young arms and free agents.  They signed the first of those free agents last year (Lester) and are probably looking at Price this off-season.

2015 wasn't supposed to be their year.  I think a 24 win improvement wasn't something you plan for.  So they are ahead of schedule. 

Do all plans work out?  No.  But I think they expected that a year or two from now is when their plan would really kick into gear.

[CTWarrior]

You can take the "those five days" out of it.  The Mets are a better team.  Period.  And it's really not even close.  Outside of the Wild Card game, the Playoffs really aren't a crapshoot.  In a best of 7 series, the better team almost always wins.

Since Doug Melvin is no longer the Brewers GM, I do feel pretty confident in saying 10/10 GMs would take the Mets' pitching staff over the Cubs' lineup.

Disagree everywhere.  One, the best team does not almost always win in baseball.  It is unusual, for example, for the team with the best record to win the World Series. 

Second, many GMs would prefer young hitters because young pitchers get hurt at a much higher rate.  History says at least one of Harvey, DeGrom and Syndegard will not be a good starting pitcher in 3 years due to injury. 

Anything can happen in baseball.  Last place teams sweep series from first place teams during the season. 

[wadesworld]

Disagree everywhere.  One, the best team does not almost always win in baseball.  It is unusual, for example, for the team with the best record to win the World Series. 

Second, many GMs would prefer young hitters because young pitchers get hurt at a much higher rate.  History says at least one of Harvey, DeGrom and Syndegard will not be a good starting pitcher in 3 years due to injury. 

Anything can happen in baseball.  Last place teams sweep series from first place teams during the season.

Right.  You're confusing regular season with Playoffs.  In the regular season a last place team's #1 pitcher routinely matches up with a contending team's #5 pitcher.  Injuries occur over the course of a 162 game season.  Teams rest starters over the course of a 162 game season.  Etc., etc., etc.

In the Playoffs you start to see only a team's best pitchers, they're playing their regulars every game, you're getting days off more often, and you know who's going to be available (healthy) for you every day.  In a best of 7 baseball series, the better team almost always wins.  That doesn't mean the team that had the best record is the better team.  Regular season baseball and Playoff baseball (just like basketball) are 2 very different things.

Were the Cardinals better than the Cubs by the end of the year?  I say no.  Apparently Cubs fans think yes, but the dice just rolled their way for their series.

[CTWarrior]

Right.  You're confusing regular season with Playoffs.  In the regular season a last place team's #1 pitcher routinely matches up with a contending team's #5 pitcher.  Injuries occur over the course of a 162 game season.  Teams rest starters over the course of a 162 game season.  Etc., etc., etc.

In the Playoffs you start to see only a team's best pitchers, they're playing their regulars every game, you're getting days off more often, and you know who's going to be available (healthy) for you every day.  In a best of 7 baseball series, the better team almost always wins.  That doesn't mean the team that had the best record is the better team.  Regular season baseball and Playoff baseball (just like basketball) are 2 very different things.

What is your definition of best team?  The team that wins?  If that is the case I guess you are always right.  The Mets won in large part because a mediocre 30 year-old second baseman (who they were going to be happy to be rid of before the playoffs started) that has a career high of 14 homers and hit homers in back to back games exactly once in the eight years since he joined the big leagues went on the hottest streak of his life at the best possible time. 

I don't necessarily disagree that the October 2015 Mets are better than the October 2015 Cubs, but I do disagree that the best team at any given time usually wins in baseball.  Despite the 7 games series, I think baseball is a bigger "crapshoot" than football.  I think the best team in the NFL is far more likely to win the championship than the best team in MLB.  And the best team in the NBA is far more likely to win the championship than the best team in the NFL.