Darvish

[pacopete4]

It depends on how you define regression. Shaw played in 144 games last season, the last 50 of which weren't very good.

 

.242/.326/.442/.768 is his second half numbers and they probably dip a little more if you just go by his last 50 games. What isn't mention is his kid almost dying, and a pretty good head injury to begin August (which is where the dip in his numbers really are). Some will say excuses, others will realize what this can do to your stat line.

[KeithStone53151]

uld still be very valuable for the Cubs, even with neutral/bad/terrible defense (depends what you read/want to believe).

 

I guess I'm just reading a lot of wishful thinking pieces on the Cubs not having the organizational or pitching depth to get it done while people are ready to blindly believe the Brewers still have an 85 win team and that adding a good player is gonna do it.

 

I dunno, there just seems to be a lot of pessimism on the Cubs from a few posters and I think they're not factoring the $ still to spend, guys like Schwarber continuing to develop, or Happ/Contreras blossoming more or being full contributors in a full season.

 

It's interesting that you mention depth at the pitching position on the top section to knock down fans who believe the Cubs are in a difficult position but all the players you list on the bottom are all position players you expect to take a jump. Maybe try showing the pitching depth that we are supposed to be scared of if you really want to try making a point.

 

Right, they don't have much for pitching depth and I doubt they have another year where 5 starting pitchers get them through the season. And the pitching that they have(without Darvish) isn't the type of pitching you see winning in October. Arrieta and Davis are gone and Lester is getting older/less effective. And unless Hendricks regains some velocity, teams are going to figure out how to hit his mid 80s garbage. Quintana is the most sure thing they have, but his arm has a lot of miles on it. Maybe he'll be like Verlander or Sabathia where they can pile on basically unlimited innings without significantly regressing, but those guys are the exception not the rule. I'm sure all the cubs starters are projected favorably with shiny WAR numbers that people love so much, but fangraphs is notoriously terrible at projecting regression in older players and at projecting improvement in young players.

 

That's why I say they are built to win in the regular season but not in the post season. They have tons of upside on the offensive side, but not so much on the pitching front. Good hitting beats good pitching, but great pitching beats great hitting.

[bill hAll Star]

uld still be very valuable for the Cubs, even with neutral/bad/terrible defense (depends what you read/want to believe).

 

I guess I'm just reading a lot of wishful thinking pieces on the Cubs not having the organizational or pitching depth to get it done while people are ready to blindly believe the Brewers still have an 85 win team and that adding a good player is gonna do it.

 

I dunno, there just seems to be a lot of pessimism on the Cubs from a few posters and I think they're not factoring the $ still to spend, guys like Schwarber continuing to develop, or Happ/Contreras blossoming more or being full contributors in a full season.

 

It's interesting that you mention depth at the pitching position on the top section to knock down fans who believe the Cubs are in a difficult position but all the players you list on the bottom are all position players you expect to take a jump. Maybe try showing the pitching depth that we are supposed to be scared of if you really want to try making a point.

 

Right, they don't have much for pitching depth and I doubt they have another year where 5 starting pitchers get them through the season. And the pitching that they have(without Darvish) isn't the type of pitching you see winning in October. Arrieta and Davis are gone and Lester is getting older/less effective. And unless Hendricks regains some velocity, teams are going to figure out how to hit his mid 80s garbage. Quintana is the most sure thing they have, but his arm has a lot of miles on it. Maybe he'll be like Verlander or Sabathia where they can pile on basically unlimited innings without significantly regressing, but those guys are the exception not the rule. I'm sure all the cubs starters are projected favorably with shiny WAR numbers that people love so much, but fangraphs is notoriously terrible at projecting regression in older players and at projecting improvement in young players.

 

That's why I say they are built to win in the regular season but not in the post season. They have tons of upside on the offensive side, but not so much on the pitching front. Good hitting beats good pitching, but great pitching beats great hitting.

 

I don't see the Brewers' current rotation or the Cards' rotation as anything that would strike fear in the Cubs, especially with Darvish supposedly being a Cub (if not, they probably end up with someone like Cobb). I think that's what this is all about.

 

If you want to say that the Cubs are not likely to get past the Dodgers or Nats, I won't disagree with you.

 

Also, you kinda just proved the whole point about the overdone doom-and-gloom over the Cubs on this forum/thread. You're entitled to your opinion, but the Brewers have a lot of similar warts to deal with if not everything goes right.

 

I'm on board with the Brewers being at the point where the Cubs maybe getting knocked down to mid-high 80s in wins if an injury occurs, but I'm not willing to push my chips in and build a season that is dependent on the Cubs having a multitude of injuries.

 

Not much changed with Lester last year peripherally other than the ball going out of the yard more often than it usually did on him and a bad LOB%. Maybe more homers is a trend, but Lester might have also been a bad luck guy last year as well. He's getting older, but he very well might produce a low-mid 3s ERA next year.

[KeithStone53151]

I don't see the Brewers' current rotation or the Cards' rotation as anything that would strike fear in the Cubs, especially with Darvish supposedly being a Cub (if not, they probably end up with someone like Cobb). I think that's what this is all about.

 

If you want to say that the Cubs are not likely to get past the Dodgers or Nats, I won't disagree with you.

 

Also, you kinda just proved the whole point about the overdone doom-and-gloom over the Cubs on this forum/thread. You're entitled to your opinion, but the Brewers have a lot of similar warts to deal with if not everything goes right.

 

I'm on board with the Brewers being at the point where the Cubs maybe getting knocked down to mid-high 80s in wins if an injury occurs, but I'm not willing to push my chips in and build a season that is dependent on the Cubs having a multitude of injuries.

 

Not much changed with Lester last year peripherally other than the ball going out of the yard more often than it usually did on him and a bad LOB%. Maybe more homers is a trend, but Lester might have also been a bad luck guy last year as well. He's getting older, but he very well might produce a low-mid 3s ERA next year.

 

I wasn't trying to argue that we are better on paper than the Cubs. Even trading for Yelich and signing Darvish or Arrieta probably doesn't accomplish that. But those guys would put us a notch below them, and close enough that we have a very real chance to pass them. I'm not necessarily advocating for those moves, fyi. Guys get hurt, guys regress, guys improve. You don't only try to improve the roster if you can guarantee you'll be the best team on paper come April. I don't see the Rangers or Phillies or Rockies rolling over because the Astros, Nationals, and Dodgers are too good on paper.

[pacopete4]

I don't see the Brewers' current rotation or the Cards' rotation as anything that would strike fear in the Cubs, especially with Darvish supposedly being a Cub (if not, they probably end up with someone like Cobb). I think that's what this is all about.

 

If you want to say that the Cubs are not likely to get past the Dodgers or Nats, I won't disagree with you.

 

Also, you kinda just proved the whole point about the overdone doom-and-gloom over the Cubs on this forum/thread. You're entitled to your opinion, but the Brewers have a lot of similar warts to deal with if not everything goes right.

 

I'm on board with the Brewers being at the point where the Cubs maybe getting knocked down to mid-high 80s in wins if an injury occurs, but I'm not willing to push my chips in and build a season that is dependent on the Cubs having a multitude of injuries.

 

Not much changed with Lester last year peripherally other than the ball going out of the yard more often than it usually did on him and a bad LOB%. Maybe more homers is a trend, but Lester might have also been a bad luck guy last year as well. He's getting older, but he very well might produce a low-mid 3s ERA next year.

 

The Cubs lost 11 more games last season than in their WS season. They gave up 139 more runs during last season than their WS season. They haven't improved their pen much and their rotation is just solid. It's not out of this world to think they could finish between 85-90 wins this season which could open a door for the Brewers to compete with. This doesn't mean that the Brewers have to push "all in" this season but if they find moves to better their team this season while retaining control of players for multiple years, why would we not want that?

 

Now if the Cubs go off the rails and start adding all over the place. I'll check back in with you to get the deets about how great they are.

[bill hAll Star]

You don't only try to improve the roster if you can guarantee you'll be the best team on paper come April. I don't see the Rangers or Phillies or Rockies rolling over because the Astros, Nationals, and Dodgers are too good on paper.

 

Those teams aren't in the same position as the Brewers.

 

The Phillies are probably in the last building year of a near-scorched earth rebuild (they waited too long on Utley and Howard, but they let it go into the tank). They are probably willing to spend huge this year if the opportunity presents itself, but I see them making a play at Harper or one of the aces next year to combine with a very good, young roster.

 

The Rockies are nearing the end of Arenado/Blackmon era and have 5 or 6 solid pitchers that they control for the next 5 years.

 

The Rangers have always been in win-now mode. I don't even think it's smart to do, but they have a lot of vets on the team.

 

The Phillies may be the closest comparison to the Brewers, but the Nats might have a shorter shelf life as a dominant team. Murphy and Harper are FAs next year and Scherzer may soon decline (he's a truly elite anchor). Zimmerman is getting old, Gio's deal is up soon, etc. They've got Trea Turner and Robles coming up eventually, so maybe they can keep it rolling, but there is a window for the Phillies to jump through next year. I don't see them trading for Christian Yelich to try to surpass the Nats this year.

[bill hAll Star]

but if they find moves to better their team this season while retaining control of players for multiple years, why would we not want that?

 

This debate will rage on all offseason, but I'm not sure I want to because:

 

A. I'm less confident that the Cubs will open a window.

B. If the Cubs do, I'm not even confident that if we have Yelich+ that we'd jump through it.

C. The cost to get Yelich is several 2019-2025 contributors. I think there's value in seeing what we currently have and pairing the good elements of that with said 2019-2025 contributors and being the best team in the division 2020-2025. I still would like to take a shot at it this year, but I'd do it almost all through free agency. Sign another starter and see if we can sneak past the Cubs this year.

 

Yelich may be a 2018-2023 contributor, but you're crushing the depth of 2020-2025 to get him most likely.

[pacopete4]

 

The Phillies may be the closest comparison to the Brewers, but the Nats might have a shorter shelf life as a dominant team. Murphy and Harper are FAs next year and Scherzer may soon decline (he's a truly elite anchor). Zimmerman is getting old, Gio's deal is up soon, etc. They've got Trea Turner and Robles coming up eventually, so maybe they can keep it rolling, but there is a window for the Phillies to jump through next year. I don't see them trading for Christian Yelich to try to surpass the Nats this year.

 

It was reported that 25 teams had offers in on Yelich. But even if they aren't one of the teams that have an offer, it would be understandable since they have their outfield starters all about 24-26 years old.

[pacopete4]

but if they find moves to better their team this season while retaining control of players for multiple years, why would we not want that?

 

This debate will rage on all offseason, but I'm not sure I want to because:

 

A. I'm less confident that the Cubs will open a window.

B. If the Cubs do, I'm not even confident that if we have Yelich+ that we'd jump through it.

C. The cost to get Yelich is several 2019-2025 contributors. I think there's value in seeing what we currently have and pairing the good elements of that with said 2019-2025 contributors and being the best team in the division 2020-2025. I still would like to take a shot at it this year, but I'd do it almost all through free agency. Sign another starter and see if we can sneak past the Cubs this year.

 

Yelich may be a 2018-2023 contributor, but you're crushing the depth of 2020-2025 to get him most likely.

 

It is only depth if they pan out.

[Eye Black]

It depends on how you define regression. Shaw played in 144 games last season, the last 50 of which weren't very good.

 

.242/.326/.442/.768 is his second half numbers and they probably dip a little more if you just go by his last 50 games. What isn't mention is his kid almost dying, and a pretty good head injury to begin August (which is where the dip in his numbers really are). Some will say excuses, others will realize what this can do to your stat line.

I don't know what specific effects the traumatic family issues played (nor do I wish to speculate), but he hit at a very high level throughout the height of the timeline during which it took place.

 

Through his first 400 at bats he slugged .571 and had an OPS of .937. Over his last 200 at-bats (yes, a small sample) he slugged .398 and had a .713 OPS. Obviously we all hope/expect that reality is closer to the first 2/3rds of his season, but for a player that has been susceptible to prolonged cold streaks in the past it is at least something to keep in mind.

[tmwiese55]

Shaw had a very similar second half dip the previous year too. He passed the eye test for me even in the 2nd half dip, but yea you can't ignore it. I chalk a lot of it to a teamwide pressing thing once they hit the cold spell, seemed everyone tensed up too much including him.

[monty57]

When Cubs are discussed: "They're in bad shape. Nobody wants their (slightly) regressed players and they are running out of money to spend."

 

When Brewers are discussed: "Everything's gonna be great. We aren't going to have any regressions."

 

Do I have that right?

 

I have always worried about signing FAs in their 30's to longer-term deals that take them into their mid-to-late 30's. I've expressed concern that I think Stearns will sign some 30-something FA's this offseason (Cain, Darvish/Arrieta/Cobb). It could help us make the playoffs, but could lead to a large portion of our payroll going to several over-the-hill players in a couple of years. That would hurt even further if we gutted the farm too much in trades. I am interested to see how Stearns plays the remainder of this offseason, but I have some worries if it includes (as I think it will) trading off MLB ready youngsters and signing older vets.

 

I have also commented since the beginning of the offseason that I hope the Cubs have to spend big money to fill the holes created when they lost some players to free agency (Arrieta, Lackey, Davis). I was bummed when they got cheaper fixes in guys like Chatwood, but they're still one pitcher short of a full rotation, and they are still probably worse "on paper" right now than they were to start last year. To get back to 2017 opening day talent level, they need to find a replacement for Arrieta, and that probably means signing either Arrieta or Darvish.

 

Meanwhile, their arby raises are going to be huge over the next few seasons. They have plenty of money, but will probably not want to go too far over the luxury tax limit for extended periods, so they're going to be somewhat limited in future years if they have to sign Darvish or Arrieta this offseason. There would be a riot among Cub fans if Bryant left as a free agent, so adding $25M or so in payroll for Darvish while keeping room for paying Bryant when they have to could tie their hands a bit in next year's huge FA class. At the very least, signing one of the big names in next year's class could push them far enough over the luxury tax that they will drop draft positions and have to pay huge amounts of luxury tax. I don't think they want to go there.

 

Arrieta and Darvish are the top guys on the market this year, but they are 31 and are not elite. Since they are the top guys on the market, they want to get paid as if they are elite. The only thing that piqued my excitement when I heard the Brewers made an offer was that it was probably because the slow FA market got Stearns thinking he could get them on a team-friendly deal. If it's not a team-friendly deal, I'd rather they go to the Cubs than the Brewers as they will likely not live up to whatever contract they sign.

[Boomer5]

Santana, Shaw etc...have NOT regressed as of yet.

It depends how you define regression. Shaw played in 144 games last season, the last 50 of which weren't very good.

 

I do think we would be better off focusing our discussion here on the Brewers roster construction rather than pontificating about the Cubs demise. I think (hope) we all realize the Cubs are likely a 90+ win team for the next few years with plenty of room for error.

 

OT but I'm not sure Shaw is all that well conditioned. He is built like a bowling pin and has had two consecutive poor second halves.

 

As for Darvish, the Cubs can have him and his massive salary. No one should ever sign a 31 year old pitcher to a 5-6 year deal.

[TURBO]

Something tells me the Cubs are NOT going to allow us to sign Darvish with our recent activity...

 

If we don't get him, hopefully his price just went up for the Cubs.

[KCBrewerfan34]

May be a good thing. Let’s see how things play out.

[82brewcrew82]

What do we know about Darvish?

 

Facts or Widely Reported Information: He isn't singed and the Brewers at least made a play

Potentially Reliable Information: HH19 said the will not be a Brewer and will be a Cub. Also that the people for Darvish huddled to discuss the offer the Brewers made prior to rejecting the offer.

 

What that tells me is that the offer the Brewers made was not rejected based on money alone. Darvish didn't sign here because he didn't want to be here.

[WestCoastCrew]

Jon Heyman just tweeted that the Darvish decision could come this week, with Cubs the favorite and other teams still involved.

[brewmann04]

so does that mean when the crew losses out Yu do they focus now on Lynn or Arietta?

[82brewcrew82]

It could rain this week with a 20% chance as the favorite but other weather patterns are still involved.

[MrTPlush]

so does that mean when the crew losses out Yu do they focus now on Lynn or Arietta?

 

They have showed interested in both those guys this offseason, so yes.

[TURBO]

 

What that tells me is that the offer the Brewers made was not rejected based on money alone. Darvish didn't sign here because he didn't want to be here.

 

There COULD be an OUTSIDE chance that maybe that has changed since signing cain and trading for Yelich. he has to realize we are legit at this point, right?

[82brewcrew82]

I highly doubt the Brewers didn't have a vision for what they were trying to accomplish and I highly doubt they didn't lay that plan out for Darvish. Darvish could have said "let me see how that goes and we can talk again", but he didn't. He said no. He doesn't want to be in Milwaukee so he isn't going to be in Milwaukee.

[TURBO]

I highly doubt the Brewers didn't have a vision for what they were trying to accomplish and I highly doubt they didn't lay that plan out for Darvish. Darvish could have said "let me see how that goes and we can talk again", but he didn't. He said no. He doesn't want to be in Milwaukee so he isn't going to be in Milwaukee.

 

Your source for all that inside information? You are speaking factually, those are not facts, not even close.

[82brewcrew82]

I highly doubt the Brewers didn't have a vision for what they were trying to accomplish and I highly doubt they didn't lay that plan out for Darvish. Darvish could have said "let me see how that goes and we can talk again", but he didn't. He said no. He doesn't want to be in Milwaukee so he isn't going to be in Milwaukee.

 

Your source for all that inside information? You are speaking factually, those are not facts, not even close.

HH19 pretty flatly said he wasn't going to be a Brewer and that he was signing with the Cubs. I've been told his inside information is irrefutable.

[Eye Black]

I will be pretty surprised at this point if Darvish signs with anyone but the Cubs. It seems possible the delay has been (at least in part) some posturing to try to increase the Cubs offer. I would guess other teams have made competitive offers (including possibly the Brewers), but it isn’t hard to imagine him having a strong preference to play for the Cubs over the other potential suitors outside of LA or New York.