The Flaws of the Cubs, and can the Brewers avoid similar mistakes?

[3and2Fastball]

Cubs-Dodgers series showed two key flaws with the Cubs method of operations:

 

Dodgers held onto a vast majority of their top prospects over the last 3-4 years and are built to contend now for several years moving forwards. The Cubs gutted their farm system and are facing a tough situation needing to almost completely rebuild their pitching staff in an offseason where there is not elite starting pitching available via free agency.

 

The Cubs offense is way too "all or nothing" relying on the HR. They are the most "elevate to celebrate" team I've ever seen. This flawed approach can catch lightning in a bottle once, when everyone gets hot at the same time, but is not a sustained plan for success year after year in postseason Baseball. They literally could not manufacture runs other than HR's

 

I hope our Brewers take note. They, also, kept most of their prospects instead of selling out for short term success. However, they rely too much on the HR as well. You gotta have some players who make contact, get on base and create runs in the postseason especially.

[homer]

The teams playing in the World Series hit more home runs than any other team in the playoffs.

[pacopete4]

Bullpen rules all again:

 

"Dodgers bullpen in NLCS vs Cubs- 58 batters faced, 4 H, 1 BB, 22 K's, 0.00 ERA, 0.294 WHIP"

 

 

Those numbers are insane.

[tmwiese55]

Yankees and Astros also hit a ton of HRs. Though I do think Houston is surprisingly not too strikeout heavy, if I remember correctly. Overall premise is right that MKE should focus on sprinkling in a couple contact guys too for some balance. But this notion that HRs are bad or that teams should be bunting more and doing all this small ball stuff is a bit oveblown.

[Thurston Fluff]

I think the lesson I would take away is don't trade the farm for one player.

[shanedog19]

Bullpen rules all again:

 

"Dodgers bullpen in NLCS vs Cubs- 58 batters faced, 4 H, 1 BB, 22 K's, 0.00 ERA, 0.294 WHIP"

 

 

Those numbers are insane.

 

And the Cubs had an absolutely dominant bullpen last year too. You need to have it in the postseason to win a championship, there will be another team that will have it if you don't.

[monty57]

I've been thinking about doing this anyhow, so this is as good of place as any. Here is how the Cubs' payroll looks right now for 2018, using MLBtraderumors' projected arby increases (guys like Russelll, Hendricks and Bryant all hit arby in 2018).

 

Under contract:

 

RF Heyward $28,166,667 contract runs through 2023

LHP Lester $27,500,000 contract runs through 2021

Util Zobrist $16,500,000 contract runs through 2019

LHP Quintana $8,850,000 contract runs through 2018 with a 2019 option

1B Rizzo $7,285,714 contract runs through 2019 with options for 2020 and 2021

RHP Strop $5,850,000 contract runs through 2018 with 2019 option

 

Total under conract: six players, $94,152,381 (for sake of reference, the highest opening day Brewer roster was 2015 at $104,237,000)

 

Projected arbitration salaries:

 

LHP Justin Wilson (5.035) – $4.3MM

RHP Hector Rondon (5.000) – $6.2MM

RHP Justin Grimm (4.162) – $2.4MM

CF Leonys Martin (4.161) – $4.9MM

RHP Kyle Hendricks (3.081) – $4.9MM

Util Tommy La Stella (3.072) – $1.0MM

3B Kris Bryant (2.171) – $8.9MM

SS Addison Russell (2.167) – $2.3MM

 

Projected arby: eight players, $34,900,000

 

Potential pre-arby guys:

 

2B Javier Baez (arby starts 2019)

LHP Mike Montgomery (arby starts 2019)

OF Kyle Schwarber (2019)

RHP Carl Edwards (2019)

C Wilson Contreras (2020)

CF Albert Almora (2020)

RHP Eddie Butler (2019)

OF Ian Happ (2021?)

 

eight players, $4,400,000

 

If all of these guys made the roster, that would give them 22 players, $133,452,381

 

They are losing Jake Arrieta, John Lackey, Wade Davis, Jon Jay, Alex Avila, Brian Duensing, Rene Rivera, and Koji Uehara to free agency. The first four of these guys played very important roles this year, and will be hard to replace.

 

The 2018 luxury tax level is $197,000,000 and they could afford to pay that, giving them plenty of money to spend this offseason. It's 2019 that things could start to get interesting if they sign some big contracts this offseason (which they surely will). Bryant is also a Boras client and has four years of arby eligibility. He will get very expensive soon, and with no help coming from the farm, they won't have many league minimum salaries to offset the big-money players in the coming years.

 

They showed vulnerability this season and will need to spend big money on pitching to try stay on top in 2018. I don't expect them to completely crash & burn, but I think they turned what could have been a decade-long dynasty into a much shorter window of potential success.

[DocLuna7]

I mean, the Cubs absolutely have some long term salary on the books and certainly could have used a bit better starting pitching. That being said they did make it to the NLCS and I tend to think that the playoffs are mostly a crapshoot with the winner usually being the team with the best bullpen and who happens to be playing well at the right time. As a Brewers fan I would like to think optimistically and hope that this is the beginning of the Cubs spiral back towards irrelevancy but I tend to believe that Theo knows what he has to work with (a TON of money and a talented core) and will continue to make decisions accordingly.

[pacopete4]

I hope the Cubs get silly and give Bryce Harper the money this offseason. Let another big contract take money away from a possible pitcher.

[MadThinker88]

I hope the Cubs get silly and give Bryce Harper the money this offseason. Let another big contract take money away from a possible pitcher.

 

??? Did you mean Kris Bryant or did mean NEXT offseason for Harper?

Harper is a free agent after the 2018 season so the Cubs can't pony up a contract for him this offseason...

[pacopete4]

I hope the Cubs get silly and give Bryce Harper the money this offseason. Let another big contract take money away from a possible pitcher.

 

??? Did you mean Kris Bryant or did mean NEXT offseason for Harper?

Harper is a free agent after the 2018 season so the Cubs can't pony up a contract for him this offseason...

 

Oh yeah, jumped the gun there. Next offseason works too.

[adambr2]

Yeah I think he did mean Harper but was just mistaken on his FA date. Kris Bryant is under club control until 2021 so I don't know why he would have meant him.

 

I agree with his premise though. Harper is a little more hype than production. Don't get me wrong, he's an outstanding player, but take away his 2015 season and he's really more of a 4-5 WAR player.

 

Still great, but for a guy frequently compared to someone like Mike Trout levels of greatness, he's nowhere close. Trout is in a league of his own, but Harper is probably going to get that kind of level of elite money. I would love if the Cubs were the ones to give it to him.

[MadThinker88]

Yeah I think he did mean Harper but was just mistaken on his FA date. Kris Bryant is under club control until 2021 so I don't know why he would have meant him.

 

Just because someone is under control to X date, doesn't mean a team couldn't look to cost control those arbitration years and maybe buy 1 or 2 of the initial Free Agency years. From the player perspective it guarantees the income even if they suffer a career-ending injury or their production falls off the cliff.

 

Once the money is spent in one place, those same dollars can't be spent on another player..

[pacopete4]

Adam is correct. I meant Harper. Just got mixed up on his FA date. I like Harper. I think he's a great player. But he will get an insane amount of money and I want it to be from the Cubs. I want them to hamstring themselves.

[monty57]

The Cubs don't really have any prospects left to spend, so they'll pretty much need to spend money for any upgrade (although they could trade Schwarber to an AL team, but his stock is down).

 

I'd guess that the Cubs will end up signing one of the 31-year-old starters Yu Darvish or Jake Arrieta somewhere in the 4-5 year / $100-$125M range. They will need to go big to either re-sign or replace Arrieta, and that will cost them more than they paid for his services this year.

 

I think they traded for Wilson to replace Davis when he's gone next year, but he pitched pretty poorly for the Cubs, so they will probably spend to get a new closer. Unless they re-sign Davis, who just turned 32 and will demand a big contract, they are not going to find his production on the free agent market.

 

Unless they decide to let Montgomery start, they will also need to look for a replacement for Lackey, probably from that same group the Brewers will be looking at: Lynn, Cobb, and Cashner.

 

They'll probably let Almora and Happ cover CF. Jay may not seem like much of a loss, but I think they will miss that .375 OBP.

 

Doing these three things will put them right back around that $170-180M payroll they've been at the past few years, but will obligate them to some more big contracts they'll have to pay as their arby guys get more expensive over the next few years. And, these big contracts will be to guys on the wrong side of 30, which have the potential to end badly.

 

If they don't do these three things, they will take a big step back from 2017 to 2018 as they're not finding replacements for Arrieta, Davis or Lackey from their farm.

[reillymcshane]

The Cubs offense is way too "all or nothing" relying on the HR.

I guess I disagree with this. They scored the second most runs in the NL last year - only two behind the Rockies. As for HRs, they were 3rd in the league - behind Milwaukee and the Mets. Each of those two teams scored roughly 90 less runs than the Cubs last year - despite the same number of HRs.

 

2nd in the league in runs. 3rd in HRs. I guess I don't really see them as too reliant on the HR. And certainly no more so than the Nationals or the Diamondbacks (who hit 8 and 3 HRs less than the Cubs, and scored 3 and 10 runs less). The Dodgers hit only three fewer HRs than the Cubs this year - yet scored 52 fewer runs.

 

Teams get hot. Teams get cold. It happens.

 

As for the main argument - that the Cubs have sold out long term for short term gain - I think that's totally legit. But I think they have a plan they can live with (not perfect, but pretty solid). They are set in position players for several years to come - Contraras, Rizzo, Baez, Russell, Happ, Heyward. That's pretty solid (minus CF). There's Zobrist and Schwarber as well - although the former is getting old and the latter really doesn't belong in the NL.

 

As Monty pointed out, the Cubs have about $135M committed to players in 2018. With a rotation that begins with Lester, Hendricks and Quintana - that's a decent starting point. They could throw some crazy money at one of the big starters - Arrieta or Darvish - or add more of a #4 type, and then 2-3 relievers. Maybe a cheap #5 starter as well. That starts pushing them toward the luxury tax line, but not so much that they couldn't add salary during the season if they needed to.

 

The thing is that this club is built to win for the next three or so years. You pointed it out - they sold their system (at least upper minor league guys). They have some nice lower level prospects, but it's going to take time for those guys to develop (if ever). But right now, they have the offense to carry the club. They have some room to add payroll as well - which will make them pretty good. Depth will be an issue for them, but heck, I'd push the envelope with guys like Rizzo and Bryant on my roster. Now is the time to win. Perhaps in a few years they'll need to reboot - but they've won one WS, and nearly got to a second, so I'd say they are doing pretty well.

[monty57]

Yeah I think he did mean Harper but was just mistaken on his FA date. Kris Bryant is under club control until 2021 so I don't know why he would have meant him.

 

Just because someone is under control to X date, doesn't mean a team couldn't look to cost control those arbitration years and maybe buy 1 or 2 of the initial Free Agency years. From the player perspective it guarantees the income even if they suffer a career-ending injury or their production falls off the cliff.

 

Once the money is spent in one place, those same dollars can't be spent on another player..

 

Bryant chose Boras as his agent. Players who do that generally want maximum dollars, so they don't sign extensions. They go year-to-year and then sell their services to the highest bidder when they hit free agency.

 

The Cubs will have to figure this into their future plans, because Cub fans would go ballistic if they lost him to free agency.

[adambr2]

Yeah I think he did mean Harper but was just mistaken on his FA date. Kris Bryant is under club control until 2021 so I don't know why he would have meant him.

 

Just because someone is under control to X date, doesn't mean a team couldn't look to cost control those arbitration years and maybe buy 1 or 2 of the initial Free Agency years. From the player perspective it guarantees the income even if they suffer a career-ending injury or their production falls off the cliff.

 

Once the money is spent in one place, those same dollars can't be spent on another player..

 

I understand the process. Don't think it really affects the Cubs one way or another if they go year to year with Bryant or long-term barring a highly unlikely catastrophic injury. I doubt he's going to do a deal to sell a year or two of FA at this point. I think he'll go year to year or very long-term.

 

Either way I think he'd be a better investment for them than Harper.

[Bombers]

I think the lesson I would take away is don't trade the farm for one player.

Amen

[FVBrewerFan]

Bullpen rules all again:

 

"Dodgers bullpen in NLCS vs Cubs- 58 batters faced, 4 H, 1 BB, 22 K's, 0.00 ERA, 0.294 WHIP"

 

 

Those numbers are insane.

 

This is what stood out to me too. And the great news is there's no reason the Brewers can't have a dominant BP when they're ready to compete for a WS. Just like KC did.

 

Yea, it helps to have Bellinger, Kershaw, etc. But let's face it, the Brewers will never have the best roster on paper, or per Fangraphs, etc. That's fine. If they have a really good team overall, and a dominant BP they have a legit shot. Brewers can build a team like that because a dominant BP doesn't cost as much as a Harper or Greinke.

[tmwiese55]

Cubs themed thread, this fits here much better.

 

https://www.theringer.com/2017/10/20/16507056/chicago-cubs-dynasty-in-doubt-nlcs-loss-los-angeles-dodgers

[jerichoholicninja]

They certainly are specifics to look at but the last three years the Cubs have had more success than the Brewers have had in their entire existence. Obviously, don't trade your farm for one player but I really don't see much else in terms of "flaws" for what they've done. The Heyward contract was stupid but the money really means little to them.

[nate82]

The biggest flaw with the Cubs has always been the question of pitching. The Cubs haven't drafted all that well in terms of pitching or not at all. The Cubs have been focusing on mostly positional players in the draft. I haven't looked at the Cubs international player signings lately but I believe they have also focused on positional players over pitchers.

 

The Cubs strategy is clear they will either trade or sign players to fill out their rotation or their bullpen. The system is pretty much dry right now so going forward the Cubs are going to have to sign someone to fill in the rotation or in the bullpen. The last I heard the Cubs ownership is not willing to go over the luxury tax for a long period of time. The Cubs are going to want to save their money for Bryant and Boras is not going to allow Bryant to sign an early extension with the Cubs unless it completely benefits Bryant over the Cubs.

 

I don't see the Cubs resigning Arrieta I think the Cardinals are going to snatch him away from the Cubs. I believe Davis comes back to the Cubs though but that is going to cost the Cubs a lot in terms of money and years.

 

The only way the Cubs are going to improve in the rotation is to trade a player. Schwarber would be the ideal player to trade as he is not an OF or a Catcher he really should be playing either 1B or more ideally at DH. The Rays could use Schwarber but is an Archer for Schwarber deal something the Rays would consider? I think the Rays would want Happ back in return over Schwarber and I don't think the Cubs will trade Happ unless they can somehow bring back Jay.

 

The only positive going for the Cubs is that there is a lot of depth in FA for OF's so they could pick someone up on a slightly below market deal if they went that route. I don't see the Red Sox, Yankees, or the Dodgers playing in FA this year as they are going to wait for the following off season to spend on FA's plus the Yankees and the Red Sox are both trying to get under the luxury tax so it resets next year and then it would start all over again if they decide to pick up Harper or Machado.

 

This is going to be a very interesting off season for the Cubs if they are not able to resign Arrieta or Davis they could be in trouble a little bit for next season. Schwarber or Happ would have to be traded to pick up another starter and Schwarber's value is very low after the season he just had plus there won't be many teams looking for a 1B/DH type of a player this off season and the teams that will be looking at that option will see if they can get Hosmer or Moustakas on cheaper deals.

[reillymcshane]

Another similar themed article - this one from Dave Cameron at Fangraphs:

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-cubs-already-need-to-retool/

[Lathund]

I basically came in here to make the points monty did, but he did so in a much more coherent manner. Basically, the Cubs are in very good shape with their position player group, with most of the core players under team control for the next several years. They also have Hendricks and Quintana under control for that same amount of time. That's a good start. The issue will indeed be that they have a lot of pitchers that need replacing this year, and not much in the way of internal options. As the arbitration costs rise, finding enough pitching will be increasingly more dificult, and with very little margin of error.

 

But I think that anyone hoping for the Cubs to not be competing for the division title for the next 3 years is going to be disappointed. They have room to take on quite a bit more of salary. Farm system may be bare, but there will still be some players coming through, or to trade for pitching (even if it might not be enough for a Nola or Archer or the likes). And they have the position player core already almost fully in place, so can focus entirely on pitching. The likely strength of the Cubs is also a reason why any moves to strengthen the Brewers in 2018 should also be evaluated with 2020/2021 in mind.

 

I'm also not even sure I'd categorize it as a mistake. I mean I'd do things differently if I was with the Brewers, but not necessarily if I was Theo Epstein. The clear emphasis on drafting hitters early, and focus on developing hitters while acquiring pitching has done what it's supposed to do. There's less risk in drafting and developing position players, so they chose to take the increased certainty of their rebuild on that side to be successful, while taking the calculated gamble that they could find pitching through FA and trades with their big budget. They seem to be happy to essentially go for a 4-6 year window and deal with tomorrow tomorrow. And it got them the first WS in a century, and a NLCS the next year to follow it up (A lot further than most WS winners make it the next year) so in many ways it's been a success, regardless of what happens next.

 

The one thing I don't want the Brewers to do is limit ourselves to such a short window, because the smaller the budget the harder it is to "guarantee" success in that short time span. Which means that the balance between keeping and developing prospects and trading prospects needs to be tilted towards the former. It also means continually restocking the system, trading established players if we can't afford to keep them in FA or if other teams overpay, even if we're competitive. We also don't have the money for FA pitching the Cubs do, so while I don't think their position player focus was a mistake, it would be a mistake for us.

 

Or, to hopefully sum up this rambling: The more money you can spend on each win, the more you can allow yourself pay the premium for the "sure thing", the premium for lower variance and lower risk. Drafting hitters, signing FAs and big trades are part of that. With less money, you have to take more risks to get that same production. Even more so if you want more than a 2-3 year window. That means trying to find starters from within, with the risk and high failure rates that comes with it. That means being on the value/potential/risk side of any transaction. It means to take advantage of others risk aversion. Basically avoiding short-termism in all forms, and accepting the short-term setbacks that come with a long-term focus.