Cubs, Astros, Royals - how to build?

[MNBrew]

Over the past few years, the Royals' approach to building paid off. Strong vets were added to a gradually & solidly developing core.

 

In the past year, the Cubs and Astros -- both with systems loaded with tons of high-end young talent -- went from the outhouse to the playoffs. Their ascent happened faster than most anticipated -- not necessarily less dramatically, just faster. BOTH teams' tear-down-and-build-from-scratch approach has been lauded by many, especially Brewers fans who wish the Crew were in a more similar position to both teams than they presently are.

 

Now, however, the Cubs are doling out HUGE contracts on free agents and basically acting like Theo used to be able to do with the Red Sox, especially focusing on using plenty of their young talent as tradeable assets rather than as parts of the future core.

 

Houston, by contrast, hasn't tossed around crazy money or grabbed the headlines this winter like the Cubs have.

 

My point is this: For all the Cubs have been held up as one of the model for the Brewers to follow, within a year's time, they've now stepped far, far away from a model the Brewers can follow. Their ascent may continue. But their Boston/New York-like "all in" approach guarantees nothing in terms of sustainable long-term success. The Astros haven't leveraged everything, nor have the Royals, and I'd far prefer the Brewers focus on their approaches vs. that of the Cubs.

 

What do you all think? Are the Cubs comparisons now moot? Whose organizational approaches do you still feel are worth the Brewers' efforts to emulate? Why?

[Thurston Fluff]

Houston just traded five prospects for one reliever and a minor league shortstop so it appears they are not afraid to trade prospects to win now. Frankly I hope we don't copy anyone. I would love to be the team others copy at some point. If we keep copying others we are always going to be a step behind.

[jerichoholicninja]

The Cubs traded Castro, otherwise they still have all their young guys. The money spent really isn't an issue for them as long as they can keep from trading their young players.

 

The Astros I worry about. Their system is still in ok shape but the Gomez and Giles trade have made a dent in it and it sounds like their willing to throw some stupid money at things.

 

The Royals are in a tricky spot. They won't be able to afford to keep Cain, Hosmer, Moose, and the rest of the guys that have gotten them where they are. At what point do they start trading those guys? Now might be the time. The AL Central is pretty crappy right now. It might be smart to move one of those guys now while the rest of the division is down and the hit won't hurt their competitiveness.

[pacopete4]

You're never going to stay around for decade(s) at a time being a legit WS contender. It all goes in cycles and you have your windows to go for it. The Astros feel as though they are in that right now and I kind've agree with them. The Brewers had a similar window not too long ago and they did not get it done but sometimes you have to take chances.

[StearnsFTW]

Over the past few years, the Royals' approach to building paid off. Strong vets were added to a gradually & solidly developing core.

 

In the past year, the Cubs and Astros -- both with systems loaded with tons of high-end young talent -- went from the outhouse to the playoffs. Their ascent happened faster than most anticipated -- not necessarily less dramatically, just faster. BOTH teams' tear-down-and-build-from-scratch approach has been lauded by many, especially Brewers fans who wish the Crew were in a more similar position to both teams than they presently are.

 

Now, however, the Cubs are doling out HUGE contracts on free agents and basically acting like Theo used to be able to do with the Red Sox, especially focusing on using plenty of their young talent as tradeable assets rather than as parts of the future core.

Houston, by contrast, hasn't tossed around crazy money or grabbed the headlines this winter like the Cubs have.

 

My point is this: For all the Cubs have been held up as one of the model for the Brewers to follow, within a year's time, they've now stepped far, far away from a model the Brewers can follow. Their ascent may continue. But their Boston/New York-like "all in" approach guarantees nothing in terms of sustainable long-term success. The Astros haven't leveraged everything, nor have the Royals, and I'd far prefer the Brewers focus on their approaches vs. that of the Cubs.

 

What do you all think? Are the Cubs comparisons now moot? Whose organizational approaches do you still feel are worth the Brewers' efforts to emulate? Why?

 

 

I don't see any evidence of the bolded. Castro was a bad contract and the only guy they've traded. I'll be surprised if they deal from that strength with the possible exception being trading Soler for a similarly young, controllable pitcher.

[bill hAll Star]

You're right that the Brewers will not be able to go bonkers like the Cubs, but in their own model they can get aggressive for a few years if they are smart leading up to it.

 

If the Brewers develop a loaded core of young players and are smart for 2-3 years, they may have a payroll of $60-70 million with a loaded roster of young players. You can then go out and make risks and maybe even overpay a few vets for a few years. Maybe not the Heyward deal (I somewhat see it as a 3 year contract since Heyward will probably opt out), but you can waste money on a Ben Zobrist or Lackey (not saying I even like those moves). Probably cannot supplement it with Lester, though.

[JohnBriggs12]

The Brewers get too high a percentage of their revenue from gate receipts to follow Cub and Astro models. In Chicago and Houston they could afford to let attendance drop and it did. Cub attendance, less affected no doubt by the novelty of Wrigley Field, went from 3.3 million in 08 down to 2.6 in 13 and 14. Houston's dropped almost in half from 3 million in 2007 down to 1.6 million in from 2012-2014. But both those teams are in big markets and have large amounts of revenue from local broadcast rights.

 

If the Brewers look like their going to lose 100 games every year, they will be lucky to draw 1.5 million and may never, ever get back to their peak years. Keep in mind that the Astros attendance in 2015 of 2,153,585 was a far cry from a decade ago.

 

Fans lost by a small market are fans that might never come back. In big markets, again no big deal, they just create new ones.

[JohnBriggs12]

You're right that the Brewers will not be able to go bonkers like the Cubs, but in their own model they can get aggressive for a few years if they are smart leading up to it.

 

If the Brewers develop a loaded core of young players and are smart for 2-3 years, they may have a payroll of $60-70 million with a loaded roster of young players. You can then go out and make risks and maybe even overpay a few vets for a few years. Maybe not the Heyward deal (I somewhat see it as a 3 year contract since Heyward will probably opt out), but you can waste money on a Ben Zobrist or Lackey (not saying I even like those moves). Probably cannot supplement it with Lester, though.

 

You are assuming that the Brewers will be able to rebuild a fan base similar to the past after they tank for 3-4 years? That's not a safe assumption. The Brewer emergence from 07-11 was helped in large part by mismanagement of their division rivals, particularly the Cubs, and the Astros, who then essentially threw in the towel. Other than a similarly struggling Reds franchise, I don't see the division rivals cooperating again.

[Boomer5]

You're right that the Brewers will not be able to go bonkers like the Cubs, but in their own model they can get aggressive for a few years if they are smart leading up to it.

 

If the Brewers develop a loaded core of young players and are smart for 2-3 years, they may have a payroll of $60-70 million with a loaded roster of young players. You can then go out and make risks and maybe even overpay a few vets for a few years. Maybe not the Heyward deal (I somewhat see it as a 3 year contract since Heyward will probably opt out), but you can waste money on a Ben Zobrist or Lackey (not saying I even like those moves). Probably cannot supplement it with Lester, though.

 

The Cubs went from a model franchise to stupid in the span of a few weeks. Im not sure I get their moves outside of maybe Zobrist and thats only because I trust Maddon. The other moves were downright silly. Lackey seems like a product of the St Louis pitching factory and $184 for JHey makes little sense, though I heard that contract is structured pretty well, such as it is. They are really banking on Arrietta not falling back to earth it seems, or JHey singlehandedly turning average pitchers into good ones??

 

As a side note, I noticed the Royals payroll is $115M now. That is hardly bargain basement like I assumed.

 

"Despite last season’s World Series Championship, the Royals are expected to operate with a payroll that is similar to 2015’s mark of $115MM, writes the Kansas City Star’s Sam Mellinger. As such, it’s unlikely that the club is able to retain Alex Gordon, barring unforeseen circumstances. "

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/12/todd-frazier-angels-dodgers-rangers-nationals-trade.html

[JohnBriggs12]

For the Brewers to build a winner, they have to hit on every pick they make in the top 10 and when I say hit, they need to turn those picks into guys who'll threaten to make All Star teams in their peak years before the Brewers won't be able to afford them.

 

The Brewers don't have a Greinke who'll empty out another team's prospects. They have to hit in the draft and internationally.

[craigharmann]

Houston just traded five prospects for one reliever and a minor league shortstop so it appears they are not afraid to trade prospects to win now. Frankly I hope we don't copy anyone. I would love to be the team others copy at some point. If we keep copying others we are always going to be a step behind.

 

Prospects would be a term used loosely. Oberholtzer isn't that great, Appel hasn't gotten it, Eshelman was a draft pick, and then they threw in another guy. Velasquez is the only real "prospect", but he may not stick as a starter. They made the trade and still have loads of prospects with higher talent left. And since they've built the farm as well as they have, they can now go for it and make trades that get them talent like Giles, Fiers and GoGo.

[bill hAll Star]

You're right that the Brewers will not be able to go bonkers like the Cubs, but in their own model they can get aggressive for a few years if they are smart leading up to it.

 

If the Brewers develop a loaded core of young players and are smart for 2-3 years, they may have a payroll of $60-70 million with a loaded roster of young players. You can then go out and make risks and maybe even overpay a few vets for a few years. Maybe not the Heyward deal (I somewhat see it as a 3 year contract since Heyward will probably opt out), but you can waste money on a Ben Zobrist or Lackey (not saying I even like those moves). Probably cannot supplement it with Lester, though.

 

The Cubs went from a model franchise to stupid in the span of a few weeks. Im not sure I get their moves outside of maybe Zobrist and thats only because I trust Maddon. The other moves were downright silly. Lackey seems like a product of the St Louis pitching factory and $184 for JHey makes little sense, though I heard that contract is structured pretty well, such as it is. They are really banking on Arrietta not falling back to earth it seems, or JHey singlehandedly turning average pitchers into good ones??

 

As a side note, I noticed the Royals payroll is $115M now. That is hardly bargain basement like I assumed.

 

"Despite last season’s World Series Championship, the Royals are expected to operate with a payroll that is similar to 2015’s mark of $115MM, writes the Kansas City Star’s Sam Mellinger. As such, it’s unlikely that the club is able to retain Alex Gordon, barring unforeseen circumstances. "

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/12/todd-frazier-angels-dodgers-rangers-nationals-trade.html

 

Question: You have a team that has about 7-8 All Stars on it. You are in a market where they've told you that you can support a $200 million dollar payroll or something around there. You're currently around $110 million because you have so many young, pre-arby players.

 

How do you fill out your roster? Do you buy low on Jonathan Villar because it is "smart" or do you just say, "the heck with it" and sign Zobrist? Nobody is going to care that he's overpaid. Same with Lackey. I don't really think any of their signings are worth the money, but they're at an incredible competitive advantage already given that they have so many dominant players making $500K or $3 million/year.

 

Most of these guys will be gone when and if they need to sign Bryant to a mega-deal. They probably still have the cash to just sign him to a pre-arby contract right now.

 

You could argue that they should have gone with Greinke or Price if you didn't believe in their entire pitching rotation. However, those guys are likely going to be terrible contracts in 2-3 years when inevitable arm issues arise.

[bill hAll Star]

You're right that the Brewers will not be able to go bonkers like the Cubs, but in their own model they can get aggressive for a few years if they are smart leading up to it.

 

If the Brewers develop a loaded core of young players and are smart for 2-3 years, they may have a payroll of $60-70 million with a loaded roster of young players. You can then go out and make risks and maybe even overpay a few vets for a few years. Maybe not the Heyward deal (I somewhat see it as a 3 year contract since Heyward will probably opt out), but you can waste money on a Ben Zobrist or Lackey (not saying I even like those moves). Probably cannot supplement it with Lester, though.

 

You are assuming that the Brewers will be able to rebuild a fan base similar to the past after they tank for 3-4 years? That's not a safe assumption. The Brewer emergence from 07-11 was helped in large part by mismanagement of their division rivals, particularly the Cubs, and the Astros, who then essentially threw in the towel. Other than a similarly struggling Reds franchise, I don't see the division rivals cooperating again.

 

The Bucks are building a fanbase again easily after finally getting rid of Herb's strategy and giving a slight tank the chance.

 

I bought season tickets along with a bunch of other people in the 2003-2006 range as the Brewers rebuilt after coming out of the Selig doldrums. Fans will come back when the team starts winning, guaranteed, and a subset of hardcore fans will come back as the team is just about to emerge. If this rebuild creates a 3-5 year window of making the playoffs a few times or maybe even being dominant, I can guarantee you the stadium will fill. Wisconsin fans always come back.

 

Could they strike out on their rebuild and have a really competitive division? Sure. I'd argue that rebuilding would give them a better chance from having a 3+ million fan season again in a few years. If they don't rebuild and your strategy of trying to string along 75 win seasons doesn't pan out into anything more than 75 win seasons for 5 years while the farm system remains empty, fans will care even less.

[Boomer5]

You're right that the Brewers will not be able to go bonkers like the Cubs, but in their own model they can get aggressive for a few years if they are smart leading up to it.

 

If the Brewers develop a loaded core of young players and are smart for 2-3 years, they may have a payroll of $60-70 million with a loaded roster of young players. You can then go out and make risks and maybe even overpay a few vets for a few years. Maybe not the Heyward deal (I somewhat see it as a 3 year contract since Heyward will probably opt out), but you can waste money on a Ben Zobrist or Lackey (not saying I even like those moves). Probably cannot supplement it with Lester, though.

 

The Cubs went from a model franchise to stupid in the span of a few weeks. Im not sure I get their moves outside of maybe Zobrist and thats only because I trust Maddon. The other moves were downright silly. Lackey seems like a product of the St Louis pitching factory and $184 for JHey makes little sense, though I heard that contract is structured pretty well, such as it is. They are really banking on Arrietta not falling back to earth it seems, or JHey singlehandedly turning average pitchers into good ones??

 

As a side note, I noticed the Royals payroll is $115M now. That is hardly bargain basement like I assumed.

 

"Despite last season’s World Series Championship, the Royals are expected to operate with a payroll that is similar to 2015’s mark of $115MM, writes the Kansas City Star’s Sam Mellinger. As such, it’s unlikely that the club is able to retain Alex Gordon, barring unforeseen circumstances. "

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/12/todd-frazier-angels-dodgers-rangers-nationals-trade.html

 

Question: You have a team that has about 7-8 All Stars on it. You are in a market where they've told you that you can support a $200 million dollar payroll or something around there. You're currently around $110 million because you have so many young, pre-arby players.

 

How do you fill out your roster? Do you buy low on Jonathan Villar because it is "smart" or do you just say, "the heck with it" and sign Zobrist? Nobody is going to care that he's overpaid. Same with Lackey. I don't really think any of their signings are worth the money, but they're at an incredible competitive advantage already given that they have so many dominant players making $500K or $3 million/year.

 

Most of these guys will be gone when and if they need to sign Bryant to a mega-deal. They probably still have the cash to just sign him to a pre-arby contract right now.

 

You could argue that they should have gone with Greinke or Price if you didn't believe in their entire pitching rotation. However, those guys are likely going to be terrible contracts in 2-3 years when inevitable arm issues arise.

 

Your point is valid on Zobrist because he is a Maddon guy and you are paying for his clubhouse and versatility and you can afford him.

 

The other two signings scream teen age girl who was just dropped off at the mall with her dads credit card and no instructions. Its what destroyed the Theo era with the Red Sox. The deals were structured pretty well in the case of Lackey at 2 years, thought I cant make the argument the Cubs were a John Lackey away from the WS. I dont get how JHey is an elite baseball player, WAR or no WAR. Elite defensive RF'ers (I know he will be in CF) who dont hit a whole lot are not franchise guys. I do see there is an opt out in 4 years, but I think that is a player option?

[bill hAll Star]

Zobrist is the worst contract. Who cares if he gets along with the manager if he's too old to be a productive baseball player?

 

Lackey is 2 years and he's either a throwaway #4 starter or he keeps pitching very well. They'll have mostly a good defense behind him now with Heyward (not Schwarber, though).

 

Heyward has a player opt-out after 3 years. If he's healthy at all, the way money is booming in baseball, he'll opt-out and they'll have to decide whether they want to commit to him for another 5-8 years then. It could turn bad if he completely falters and never can opt out, but it's at least front-loaded in that case.

 

The later era of Epstein somewhat applied to this theory as well. They did have money to burn. However, Gonzalez probably would have been productive had he stayed...Lackey was a leadership/personal issue...he was worth the money again once he lost weight. Crawford was a bad deal.

 

Almost no mega contract is worth it in the end. However, if I have a cheap payroll already, I don't care if I'm overpaying somebody to supplement my roster if the owner is basically begging me to spend the money.

[Jenkins5]

Brewers were garbage for 20 years and the fan base game storming back with winning pretty quickly from 2005+. Same with the Bucks. Loyal fans will always stay loyal. When the team starts to develop star players and begin winning again all the fair weather fans will come running back. Arcia & Phillips come up and take off the way we hope....fans will come out to see the same way they did for Weeks & Fielder came up.

[Jenkins5]

The teams I like the most are Rays, Royals, and was Astros for rebuilding. It all starts with the depth of the system. The more high end players you have the better in your farm. Astros have have kind of went rogue the way you shouldn't do. They had such a deep system to bring keys in VIA Trade or fill MLB holes but now they are getting to the point where they are just cleaning out the farm. At this rate they are going to be close to the situation the Brewers fell into which doesn't end well.

 

I love the Rays, they have dropped off a little now but so long they just always competed and put themselves in a good situation to make a run. There system was always really good, they would trade players about to get paid for young talent, and overall just a very well run team. Royals are in same boat and are to the point where they need to decide, pay everyone, let them walk, or trade some off to really get the system prepared for the next needed wave.

[3and2Fastball]

Personally I think the Heyward signing was fantastic, but only if they play him in RF where he is elite defensively. Acquiring great defense is a smart way to help build a roster. I feel in a similar way with the Angels trading for Andrleton Simmons which I think was the best move of the winter so far.

 

The Brewers do have one tremendous trade asset: Jonathan Lucroy

 

Drafting smart, developing players and letting players go in free agency (or trading them prior to free agency) is a tried & true way to build a team. Hopefully with Stearns now in place we will never again sign aging 30-something free agents

 

I think there are some innovative ways that the Brewers can & will approach strategy & analytics that can give them a competitive edge. That, in part, was a key to the Royals success.

 

The Brewers don't necessarily need to model themselves after the Royals (elite bullpen, athleticism, high contact hitters, great defense) but it is certainly smart. Getting out ahead of whatever the next trend will be would be even smarter. Defining that trend and putting it into place in 2017-2018 would be smartest of all.

[LouisEly]

Well, the one thing that all of those teams have in common is multiple consecutive years of top-10 picks. The Royals missed on a few, but that's because they had about a decade of top 10 picks. The Astros missed on a few, but the Astros and Cubs have capitalized on two other things: 1) the Astros used the bonus pool given to #1 overall picks to sign later round picks to above-slot values and in essence get multiple 1st/2nd round values (not necessarily picks) which made up for some missed picks, and b) the Cubs spent heavily in the international free agent pool (Cuba, and I believe they went over the pool limit last year?), giving them the equivalent of multiple 1st/2nd round picks.

 

It's not just high draft picks that the Brewers get, but also a bigger international signing bonus pool. That can bring in a couple other 1st/2nd round values.

[MNBrew]

Clarifying: I misspoke. Yes, the Cubs have only traded Castro. However, there are also oft-repeated rumblings that they'll willingly dangle Soler & Baez for a top-of-the-rotation SP.

 

It obviously hasn't happened. But they sound like they're willing to use some young players as assets of value, whether that means they ever take the field for the Cubs or not. Then, when they sign the Heywards & Zobrists & Lackeys of the FA world, then probably trade for at least another (whether this winter or before the July or August deadlines), they're inevitably filling up roster spots with several guys on long-term deals and eventually blocking some of their prospects.

[NievesNoNO]

I think each kind of has their own merit. I will say I didn't really believe in the Royals. They acquired some decent young players, some that were kind of late bloomers but they let them develop at the MLB level and let them play together. It obviously has worked for them. The Cubs and Astros weren't afraid to just lose and be awful; unfortunately I think that has to be the Brewers attitude as well.

 

The other interesting thing to me is, it doesn't seem like drafting or trading for highly regarded pitching was prioritized. The higher end prospects are mostly bats. While Melvin got some flack around these parts for prioritizing bats over pitching, it seems to me some others might feel that way as well.

 

And I agree, Wisconsin fans have proven they'll support a winner. Mark A. has also but a lot back into the Park to make it a really great place just to go regardless of W and L.

[reillymcshane]

I think there are elements of all the good organizations that we can emulate - not just one. The Cardinals have done lots of things well - such as the draft (even though they haven't had top picks), and the use of Latin American market, and not gotten too heavily invested in old free agents. Clubs like KC and Tampa have found lots of positives in undervalued areas - such as defense. Chicago has gone heavily in the international market to shore up their system. Oakland and Tampa have shown how versatile players can be important. I think it comes to picking those things that work for Milwaukee - thus a combination of all of these franchises - just taking what works for us.

 

I think there are a few essential things Milwaukee needs to do:

 

- Draft well (and not just the top 10 picks). I know this is obvious, but if we don't draft well, we'll never win. It's hitting on your top picks - plus the lower picks. Finding one extra guy a draft who becomes a major leaguer is worth a ton of money. Spend on scouts and research and whatever else you need. It's a pittance compared to signing a mediocre free agent starting pitcher.

 

- Invest heavily in the international markets. This is in Latin America, Korea, Japan, wherever. Like with the draft, we need to put money into researching, evaluating and then signing international players. And that's not about the $10M signing - those are easy to find. It's getting guys like Arcia for 100k or less. Again, you find one extra guy like this a year, and you're doing great.

 

- Extend good players when young to gain and extra year or two of control.

 

- Avoid (for the most part) long term deals to our own players. While there are always exceptions to this rule, be very sure before locking up a guy who's going into his late 30s. Again, it doesn't mean you don't do it - just be very careful about handing out these kinds of deals.

 

- When possible, trade players before they reach free agency to recoup more young, controllable players. It's important to know that you don't have to do this with everyone, but it's a great way to add young talent.

 

- Invest in knowing as much about other team's minor leaguers as you can. Be ready to grab guys in trade, or guys who get released, that you feel are undervalued. These are low cost pickups that can really have a high ROI.

 

- Use free agency sparingly. Use it to fill holes as needed, avoiding long term deals. When you do, keep contracts as short as possible.

 

In the end, the club needs to:

 

- Develop a large number of quality players. This is a cheap source of talent, which we can use ourselves, or trade as needed. This depth means we can fill many holes from within, and allows you to weather the storm when you get hit with injuries and or poor performances.

 

Again, this is pretty obvious. But it's essential to strive for this. Don't skimp on scouting budgets or whatever - that will impact the quality and quantity of your talent pool.

 

- Maintain financial flexibility - all the young players are cheap, and keeping room in your budget allows you to make moves that other teams might not be able to do.

 

- Be ruthless in the execution of the plan. As much as it hurts to lose someone who's good, you trade players as they get to expensive and let good players walk in free agency. Count on the quality depth you have accumulated to fill the void.

 

I know a lot of this is pretty much standard thought, but this is how we are going to win over a long time frame.

 

The team I think we most need to emulate is probably St. Louis. They develop a lot of young players. They make the occasional trade, give out the occasional long term - but if you go through their lineup you'll find one major free agent (Peralta), a bunch of players drafted and signed as amateurs, a few long term extensions (Wainwright, Molina, Holiday) and a few guys that were traded for (using assets drafted by the club).

 

All in all, I hope we have fun building up a winner the next few years.

[The stache]

Put me down as another who thinks the Heyward signing was fantastic. He hit .293 with a .797 OPS last year, has stolen 43 bases in 50 tries the past two seasons (an 86% success rate), and we all know what he has done in the outfield. He's entering his prime now, and I think his power production picks up a bit. Put him down as a 20 HR/20 SB guy that plays spectacular defense. Would I take that in right field in Milwaukee? In a New York minute. He'd be spectacular backing up Braun at first base.

 

It looks like the Cubs may play him in center for the time being. I think he puts in one season there, and then Albert Almora comes up full time in 2017. Almora is the center fielder of the future, and Heyward will slide back to his natural position. Kyle Schwarber only has to play average defense for that to be one of the best glove units in baseball.

 

Here's what we could be looking at as a Chicago Cubs starting lineup in 2017. Excuse me while I go get sick:

 

CF Albert Almora ®

RF Jason Heyward (L)

3B Kris Bryant ®

1B Anthony Rizzo (L)

SS Addison Russell ®

LF Kyle Schwarber (L)

2B Javier Baez ®

C Miguel Montero (L)

Pitcher

 

I don't know what they do with Jorge Soler yet. Do they somehow keep him, or trade him for a front line starting prospect? Zobrist is a nice insurance policy, but I think they way overpaid for him. Three or four seasons ago, he might have been worth close to $10 mil a season. Not now.

 

Their rotation:

 

Jake Arrieta

Jon Lester

C.J. Edwards

John Lackey

Jason Hammel

 

The Cubs need more pitching. Arrieta won't repeat his 2015 season, but he should win 17 + going forward. Lester is rock solid. C.J. Edwards needs to improve his control, but he has the stuff to be a near-top-of-the-line starter (possible #2 ceiling) if he does. That's a pretty nice 1-2-3. The Lackey signing doesn't do much for me. The five seasons prior to 2015, he had a combined 4.33 ERA. He gave up 50 home runs between 2013 and 2014--he could get absolutely bombed at Wrigley. And Jason Hammel does nothing for me.

 

I thought the Cubs should have gone hard after Jordan ZImmermann. But the Tigers grabbed him instead.

[FVBrewerFan]

I think it's critical they build their own pitching staff- especially the rotation. If you can do that, and have a great pitching staff that is controllable and relatively cheap you're more than halfway home. It allows you to go out and get a big bat at the right time in the rebuild process.

 

What I like about the KC model is that they proved you don't need a bunch of power bats to win. Or, really, even two dominant SP like the Dodgers had. Seems like a realistic model the Brewers can follow. A very good rotation, maybe not elite, an outstanding pen, and then position players that are athletic, play defense, and can get on base.

 

Not like that's anything new, just nice to see KC win it all to prove that formula can still work. With power down, and runs down in general, defense is more important, as is speed on the basepaths.

[Ennder]

There is no way to build the perfect team. Get to the playoffs and get hot at the right time has been the theme, nothing else. The past 10 world series winners have all been built differently and all have just been the team that got hot late and had some luck with health. The Royals team as an example is not built any better than the Pirates, they just got hot late. It is all a mirage. Happen to be the team that plays well late in the season and you win it all, just like in the NFL. Being the best or building it the right way is not really the key.