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

[MrTPlush]

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

 

The Houston Astros would greatly disagree with you. Especially if they can pull off one more win against the Yankees. Justin Verlander has been a hero. Not to mention they have many more years of Quintana to make him useful anyway.

[JohnBriggs12]

Discussion on the radio yesterday in Chicago was which of these 4 the Cubs would deal this offseason: Schwarber, Happ, Baez, or Almora. The feeling is they will deal one of those four to get a controllable young starter.

 

The Cubs have work to do heading into 2018. They lack starting pitching beyond their top 3. They need a closer and they need other bullpen help. Swarzak's name has come up so Brewers need to be prepared to spend a little to keep him.

[adambr2]

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.

 

I have to agree with most of this. I think there was a little bit of overexcitement over the Cubs' mediocre first half. Many were saying that they were on the downfall and that their 2016 World Series team had nothing to do with this year. The truth was always that a 103 win championship team with basically the same components in place was unlikely to just tank the next year. I think there was a lot of wishful thinking and it wasn't that surprising when the Cubs went on the big run in the 2nd half that they were always capable of doing.

 

So if we expect similar fades in the next few years, I think we'll be disappointed. Their core is still pretty well set up through 2021. Their rotation will need work, but even if they don't bring back Arrieta, they are still sitting on a big 3 of Lester, Quintana, and Kendricks for the next few years. You could certainly do worse. They obviously have the money to pursue a Darvish type arm, and I'm sure they will. The crack in the foundation is obviously with their weak farm which will force them to utilize free agency quite a bit. The hope is that they miss in FA. Since they'll be using free agency so much they'll typically be going after longtime veterans who may be a bit more volatile in their later years. If they give Darvish 6 years at 25-30M per and he starts fading after 2, things like that, it would only take a couple of those to start filling up their payroll with bad bloated contracts.

 

Either way, I'm not saying we can't compete with them, but I don't take a lot of lessons for us away from them, either good or bad. They won a WS and reached an NLCS in back to back seasons and if we do the same I'm sure we would call it a rousing success regardless of how we got there. But their blueprint means little to me either way because we can't follow it. Number 1 because we don't have the money to follow it and number 2 we still have a much better farm that we are going to need to rely on in the coming years for success.

 

Same goes with Verlander. He has been awesome for Houston. Probably great for the Cubs if he had gone their too. But I'm not sure we have the right pieces around him right now where he would have made a significant difference for us.

[markedman5]

[Thurston Fluff]

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

 

The Houston Astros would greatly disagree with you. Especially if they can pull off one more win against the Yankees. Justin Verlander has been a hero. Not to mention they have many more years of Quintana to make him useful anyway.

 

While Houston's trade for Verlander is working out in the short term it also had a long term implication. For a team like the Brewers it is not wise to give up the farm for one or two years. Look what happened last time we gave up the farm for one pitcher. Quintana would have cost us Hader plus other very high prospects. Considering how much Hader has already helped us in the short term I'm not overly convinced Quintana would have helped us win more games last season than Hader did.

[homer]

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

 

The Houston Astros would greatly disagree with you. Especially if they can pull off one more win against the Yankees. Justin Verlander has been a hero. Not to mention they have many more years of Quintana to make him useful anyway.

 

While Houston's trade for Verlander is working out in the short term it also had a long term implication. For a team like the Brewers it is not wise to give up the farm for one or two years. Look what happened last time we gave up the farm for one pitcher.

 

We made the playoffs?

[pacopete4]

Hader will be a 20 game winner in a couple of years so probably a good decision to hold onto him.

[trwi7]

Hader will be a 20 game winner in a couple of years so probably a good decision to hold onto him.

 

Well at least you're realistic.

[MrTPlush]

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

 

The Houston Astros would greatly disagree with you. Especially if they can pull off one more win against the Yankees. Justin Verlander has been a hero. Not to mention they have many more years of Quintana to make him useful anyway.

 

While Houston's trade for Verlander is working out in the short term it also had a long term implication. For a team like the Brewers it is not wise to give up the farm for one or two years. Look what happened last time we gave up the farm for one pitcher. Quintana would have cost us Hader plus other very high prospects. Considering how much Hader has already helped us in the short term I'm not overly convinced Quintana would have helped us win more games last season than Hader did.

 

But as I said it isn't like Quintana is gone now. They have him a pretty long time. Even then you are using just one player as an example of why you should never trade the farm for someone. I could make a laundry list of players who costed a ton, but really helped out the team that got them.

 

It was Verlander this year and last year it was Andrew Miller. We "sold" the farm for Greinke+Marcum and together they were a massive reason we made it so for in 2011. CC Sabathia literally carried us to a postseason birth(exactly what we were shooting for lets be honest). I guess if I was selling the farm I am hoping it is for a pitcher because they tend to have a more direct impact in postseason play.

 

Also, while I don't want to derail the thread, the trades before 2011 were definitely NOT the reason our farm system went into the dumpster...that was because of poor drafting(and the fact we were competing so we weren't selling). We really didn't give up that much future value in those trades. We ended up recouping a lot of that in Segura then Anderson. Just because we traded a few good guys does not mean your farm system is destined for #30 in baseball.

[brewmann04]

Yes we do need maybe one or two quality pitchers from going a long way

[Thurston Fluff]

Look what happened last time we gave up the farm for one pitcher.

 

We made the playoffs?

 

The problem is doing that only gets you one, at most two, shots at it. Then you get 5-10 years of mediocre to awful baseball. If the goal is to win a single championship fine. If the goal is to have a competitive team year in and year out, presumably in an effort to win multiple championships, not so fine. I'd prefer to follow a good team every year over reminiscing about that one magical year.

[homer]

Look what happened last time we gave up the farm for one pitcher.

 

We made the playoffs?

 

The problem is doing that only gets you one, at most two, shots at it. Then you get 5-10 years of mediocre to awful baseball. If the goal is to win a single championship fine. If the goal is to have a competitive team year in and year out, presumably in an effort to win multiple championships, not so fine. I'd prefer to follow a good team every year over reminiscing about that one magical year.

 

There are no guarantees either way. If they don't get Greinke they still don't have any pitching had they kept those guys.

[brewmann04]

wow the cubs make Bosio their scape goat

[Thurston Fluff]

There are no guarantees either way. If they don't get Greinke they still don't have any pitching had they kept those guys.

 

Having Cain and Escobar would have helped the pitching. It isn't like Marco Estrada was garbage and all the other guys on that staff would still have been there without the Greinke trade. Given how much better our defense would have been with Escobar playing short instead of Yuni I'm not so certain we were all that much better off even in the short term. We also would have had more money to spend to boost our bullpen without the Greinke contract. I think what it boils down to is I don't think any one player makes the difference. I think we would have had as much talent for longer had we kept the farm intact.

[homer]

I think a top of the line starter absolutely makes a difference. especially in the playoffs.

[clancyphile]

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.

 

I see the Cubs in decent shape, but they are vulnerable, and as soon as 2019, the Brewers, not the Cubs, will have the edge.

 

I look at the 2017 team, and I see the Brewers have controllable starters in Anderson, Davies, Suter, and Woodruff. More starting rotation prospects are on the way in Derby, Angel Ventura (who should be signed), Ortiz, Burnes, Perrin, and Yamamoto.

 

If this farm system can be kept in the top ten, the Brewers will be fine. If they go short-sighted... problems will happen.

[AKCheesehead]

The cubs fired Bosio, that ought to fix all their troubles.

[jerichoholicninja]

The firing of Bosio is probably so that Jon can bring in his buddy Jim Hickey.

[brewmann04]

I would like a quality starter too and would not mind trading some prospects for that starter and make a run at the playoffs and WS.You never know how prospects are going to turn out and we do have a surplus at certain spots

[Patrick425]

So, what exactly are the expectations for the Brewers once everything comes together....that they make and win the WS every year? The Cubs won the WS last year and made it to the NLCS this year. Flaws? Really?

[pacopete4]

Just because you have success doesn't mean you won't have flaws in the process. That is exactly what our GM is there to target. Is it so out of this world to think that the Cubs don't have flaws just because they've had some great success the past three seasons?

[brewmann04]

it will be nice to get our first WS

[trwi7]

So, what exactly are the expectations for the Brewers once everything comes together....that they make and win the WS every year? The Cubs won the WS last year and made it to the NLCS this year. Flaws? Really?

 

Their current rotation is Quintana/Lester (who looked to be declining this year)/Kendricks (who wasn't insanely lucky this year)/Montgomery/???. They have pretty much nothing in the farm system to get them another pitcher. They have an albatross contract in Heyward. They might have a couple more in Lester and Zobrist and they might need to trade one of their young hitters for a pitcher but most of the hitters they would be willing to trade have flaws as well, so teams might not be keen to give up some of their better pitchers for them. I guess they could sign Arrieta but he has been more mid rotation starter than Cy Young winner the past 1.5 years and that contract would likely turn into an albatross in a couple years if not sooner.

 

So yeah compared to last year when all of their hitters were on an upward trajectory, they had an amazing defense which helped their already really good pitching staff and they still had a deep farm system. A lot of that is gone now.

[Patrick425]

Everyone is an expert with the benefit of hindsight. If I were a Cub fan and the Cubs sat on their hands during the trade deadline, I would have been pretty angry. When they traded for Quintana they had nothing locked up, not even a playoff spot. He went 7-3 for them down the stretch and they control him next year with options through 2020. Eloy Jimenez has not played one game in the Majors. He may not debut until 2019. Even a "can't-miss" prospect misses sometimes.

 

I'm a GM for a top contending MLB team making another drive for the playoffs. I have a top ranked prospect in A ball who I hope will be a "5 star" MLB player in 3 years, but there is no certainty. I can trade him for a known 3-4 star player right now that will help my run for the playoffs and I can keep that player for a few years. It's a no-brainer to me. People are way too much in love with prospects, and then when or IF they actually become MLB stars, they don't seem to want them. (or they certainly don't want to trade for them). I don't get it.

[trwi7]

I'm not saying they were wrong for trading for Quintana. It's just that they're now extremely limited in how they're able to improve their team so they have to hope some team really likes Baez, Russell, Happ or Schwarber or those guys are going to have to improve a lot to trade them for the type of starter they want or they're going to have to spend in free agency to get the type of starter they want and that will likely end up being a terrible contract down the road.